Cookham Discussion Board

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? 

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

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.

This is one of the photos

(http://www.cookham.com/images/block.jpg)

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.

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  :)

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.

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'.

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

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

I would have thought the Ramblers Association would have been on to it too. I wonder what happened to the Cookham Society?

I appreciate the disappointment, I felt exactly the same when our local open space was under threat and we had to dedicate a huge amount of time and effort to address the situation. Unfortunately emotion and narrative are not going to fix the problem, there is a defined legal framework for challenging your issue and only facts and due process will work; the landowner recognises this and has quite reasonably put the wheels in motion to protect his asset for his business/employees/family. It is going to take willingness, teamwork, community spirit and hard slog to get there. It's really up to all of the Cookham community whether they feel this is a cause worth pursuing.

I've done pretty much all I can to give you the information you need to make a legal challenge, the rest is up to all of you responding to this post on this forum. If you really feel strongly that this is an issue which should be addressed in the interests of the wider Cookham community then garner support from all the local bodies that you can and spread the workload. Good luck, and hopefully your combined efforts will give you the outcome you seek.

Sadly - we are again having to fight for 'our' Corners of Cookham.  If this ''person'' gets away with this, they will be coming back for those previous 'applications' with the intent to change the face of Cookham forever !

Lots of our members have reported that access has recently been blocked on a very popular footpath between Cookham Moor and Strand Water. The Cookham Society is very concerned about this and intend to identify who is responsible, why it was done and how it can be resolved legally.

At this point we can advise that it is a 'track' and not a 'right of way'. It joins footpaths 49 and 50 and forms a beautiful circular walk allowing easy access to Strand Water from the Moor Car Park for residents and visitors. As far as we know it has been in constant use for over 50 years without hindrance which makes its sudden closure without any apparent reason seem rather spiteful and unnecessary.

Unfortunately resolving a dispute like this is likely to take a long time - and a big tractor! We will keep you updated on any developments.

(http://www.cookham.com/images/block1.jpg)

Paris I simply answered the question you posed in your original post: "and how can we get it cleared?". Of course you can continue discussing it on here for as long as you wish, but if you are at all interested in the answer to your original question and/or actually doing something about it, then my posts should be of some value. You can of course ignore them completely - entirely up to you. No offence intended, just trying to help by sharing what I know.

I contacted Gerry Clark one of our Borough Councillors and he sent this back.

He says it not currently designated as a public right of way, it may be possible to claim it as such.

How to claim an unrecorded right of way

Introduction: Recording rights of way on the definitive map

Surveying authorities (county councils or unitary authorities, with the exception of inner London boroughs) are legally obliged to prepare and maintain a document called the definitive map.

The definitive map is the official record of the public’s rights of way in an area. Just like the deeds to a house prove who the owner is, the definitive map proves that the public has a right to use the paths which are shown on it.

By claiming a right of way we mean getting it recorded on the definitive map. Once a right of way is on the definitive map it’s easier to protect it and ensure it can be enjoyed by walkers.

How do rights of way get recorded on the definitive map?

Surveying authorities are responsible for keeping their definitive map up to date, but they can’t just change it as and when they please – they have to follow a legal procedure.

A right of way can be put on the definitive map as a matter of course if it was created by a legal agreement or order, but not all rights of way come into existence like this.

The public using a route over a period of time can establish a right of way. Also, there are hundreds of historic rights of way which are yet to be formally recorded, having been wrongly left off the first definitive maps in error when they were drawn up in the 1950s and 1960s.

To get a right of way recorded on a definitive map it’s necessary to apply for a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO).

The grounds on which a right of way claim can be made

A right of way can be claimed on the basis of user evidence (i.e. that the public has established a right of way by using a defined route over a period of time), or documentary evidence (i.e. based on historical documents such as Enclosure Awards or other old maps), or a combination of the two.

Claiming a right of way using user evidence

In order to make a claim for a right of way based on public use, the law (section 31 of the Highways Act 1980) requires that you’re able to show all of the following:

A period of at least 20 years’ uninterrupted use by the public. This is counted backwards either from the date when the public’s right to use the way was called into question (for example, when somebody locked a gate across the path) or, if the public's right to use the path hasn’t been called into question, from the date of your DMMO application.
Use must be 'as of right', which means without secrecy, force, or the express permission of the landowner. But there's no need for the public to have believed it was a right of way they were using, or for the landowner to be aware that public use was taking place, provided he could be aware of it if he chose to look, i.e. not by stealth.
Use must be by the public at large, not just certain tenants or employees of an estate.
Use must follow a linear route.
In some circumstances it may be possible to establish a right of way on the basis of use by the public over a period less than 20 years under common law.

Claiming a right of way using documentary evidence

Sometimes a combination of old documents will show that a right of way exists. The law says a right of way can only be extinguished (permanently closed) through a legal process. This means that a right of way which came into existence a long time ago and is no longer visible on the ground still legally exists – and may be claimed – provided it's never been formally extinguished.

Before you start doing lots of research and hard work investigating archives, it's worth checking with the surveying authority whether the right of way you're claiming has been extinguished by a legal order. Any evidence of right of way status before an extinguishment order will have been invalidated by that extinguishment.

To prove that a right of way came into existence at some time in the past you'll need to rely on documentary evidence like old maps and Enclosure Awards. The Rights of Way Review Committee (of which we’re a member) has produced guidance which explains the different types of documentary evidence, and the weight such evidence carries, and explains how to go about finding it.

Sometimes documentary evidence will be sufficient in its own right to prove that a right of way exists, but it’s worth bearing in mind that documents may be open to more than one interpretation. If there’s been recent public use of the right of way you're claiming, it's worth submitting this evidence of use as well.

How to claim an unrecorded right of way
How to apply for a Definitive Map Modification Order

This is helpful information. However there seems to be an odd coyness about identifying the landowner. It is neither libellous nor slanderous to name the landowner, (as this is a material fact),  provided aspersions on their character or motives are not made, so would someone kindly identify the person or persons who own this land. I should be clear we need to take the position that a third party may have blocked the path; we cannot accuse the landowner until and unless they publicly confirm their actions. It is also clear that - if the council are correct - technically at this stage they are within their rights to block the path and we must accept that as a starting point.

It might then be possible to make direct representations on behalf of the community to this person, not to mention discuss the issue more widely e.g in the press - newspapers like the Guardian may be interested in the story as a general interest piece highlighting the clash between landowners and the community.

I do not know how we might move forward with the process discussed by Gerry Clark and unfortunately I don't come from a legal background, but we may be able to collectively gather the required support material here in this forum and then request that the council give it due consideration. Of course I am aware that the council are also understandably wary of sharp pointy-toothed and expensive lawyers on the other side, which is why resolving this issue amicably would be infinitely preferable to an adversarial approach - there's clearly strong feelings on both sides here, I imagine. But I think we need to start by identifying who owns this land, to be clear as to the person or persons with whom we will have to negotiate, either directly or with the aid of the council.

Incidentally, for the record, I duly certify as a statement of fact that I have, personally, crossed this bridge as a walker on at least two dozen occasions during the time I have lived in Cookham, which is from October 2004 onwards.

Furthermore I state for the record that at no time did I observe any signs indicating in any way that the right of way was anything other than a permitted path accessible to the public, nor did I at any time observe any structure, or any other encumbrance, to the bridge crossing that would indicate otherwise.

It may be worthwhile collecting a series of declarations here regarding this, as I note from the council summary under the section 'Claiming a right of way using user evidence' that at least 20 years uninterrupted use is required to be proven. I can certainly prove uninterrupted use for the last 15 years, so we would need some further testimony from other contributors in order to confirm this.

Obviously should this be required to be presented formally to the council then I will put this in writing, but at this stage it might be useful to see what evidence we might gather - James - we need you today I think to help us out, this could be your moment of glory for Cookham  :)

Guardian article on the automatic extinguishment of pre-1949 paths

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/25/countdown-begins-to-prevent-loss-of-thousands-of-footpaths-and-alleyways

this is deeply concerning as obviously around Cookham a lot of land is privately owned e.g by the Copas family and while they have been excellent in permitting access, nonetheless, we cannot count on their successors taking such a benign attitude. This means that we probably should take this opportunity to determine which paths are not officially recorded, because otherwise in a few years time we may find ourselves confronting barbed wire and gates everywhere. We've already seen this sort of thing with the owners of the pink house on Quarry Wood Rd erecting rolls of barbed wire around their property and constructing a huge fence at the bottom of the hill - this seems now to have been torn down by someone but the barbed wire remains higher up - and while in this case we're not talking about public access, anything that encourages landowners to erect barriers will soon lead to more of this sort of hideous desecration of one of the most beautiful corners of England.

It looks like we should liaise with these folks

http://www.restoringtherecord.org.uk/index.htm

and they have a book available on how to do the necessary research. I will purchase a copy and have a read.

Gerry Clark’s article did mention proof of the path being used over a period of time in general. I wonder if anyone has any photos to back it up?

You shouldn't need to spend vast sums on legal expertise, much of the leg work can be done yourselves. You'll probably need a magistrate or similar to sign off your evidence. Most authorities have specific forms for applying to have a route added to the definitive map, those for RBWM are here:
https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200215/rights_of_way/469/public_rights_of_way_forms/2

I would join with the Cookham Society and/or Parish Council and any other recognised bodies to share the workload and make the application as effective as possible. The weight of the evidence is crucial.

Please feel free to tell me to stop if you already have all of this under control!

Anthony Hurst, Rights of Way Officer has sent this:

The path is not recorded as either a public right of way or a permitted path.
 
I have arranged to meet with Mark Christie of Taylor Made Stables on Friday to discuss this matter further.
 

Hi guys. Lou and I own part of the path land and summerleaze own part. No idea who the new tenant is but I don't think it matters. Tenants dont have any actual power or authority on this sort of thing so I wouldn't bother dealing with them. As for taking your access on trust, I think that would be a mistake. If you think you have a right of access, fight for it or you will loose it. The world moves on, new generations take over and you can't depend on trust. And yes I'm meeting Anthony on friday for an update. If you want more info give me a shout I'm happy to have a chat

Thanks so much TaylorMadeLiveries, I think we need to get together and get some plans as what to do. There seems to be a lot of discussions on Facebbook, Cookham and Cookham Society plus this one, hopefully the Cookham Society and Parish Council will get together and decide what we should do to try and get access back.

I've spoken to or emailed several Cllrs and I understand the rights of way dept at RBWM are aware and meetings have been set up with interested parties to look into this issue. My understanding is that the track is not a right of way (although it has been used as such for many years) and the land is owned by Summerleaze but let out to Copas Farms and I believe a rep from the Cookham Society will talk about this when they meet with Copas Farms next week. The Cookham Society would also like to hear from anyone who can proove they have used this track over the years, to help them put a case together to turn the track into a right of way. They may be contact by email at messages@cookhamsociety.org.uk  Just to be clear as it's currently not a right of way, the farmer has not done anything wrong.

Thanks Ian, it looks like lots of people are taking action. In the article from Gerry Clarke re rights of way it does say:

A period of at least 20 years’ uninterrupted use by the public. This is counted backwards either from the date when the public’s right to use the way was called into question (for example, when somebody locked a gate across the path) or, if the public's right to use the path hasn’t been called into question, from the date of your DMMO application.

So it may be possible to make it a right of way, probably take time though.

Hi guys

Update. Sent this to Summerleaze earlier today. Will let you know if I get a response.

In the meantime I will be collecting evidence to support our claim over the next couple of weeks and will continue to update when i can.

"I'm writing with regards to the recent blocking of the link path between Footpath 49 and 50 in Cookham.

I have just received the necessary forms from RBWM. I wanted to state my intent to pursue 3 separate Bridleway and Footpath claims across Summerleaze land.

However , I do know that Peter Prior does a lot of work with the cycling community across the borough and is very involved with Maidenhead Waterways Project which I very much support.

Summerleaze has a positive reputation for supporting local good causes. With this in mind I feel the most reasonable course of action is to contact you to resolve the situation before making any official claims with RBWM. I feel strongly that we can work together on this issue, to the benefit of all.

Yours Faithfully
Mark Christie
Taylor Made Liveries"

Thanks Mark, I will let the Cookham Society know.

The following has been agreed with Summerleaze:-
 
“We are pleased that following constructive and helpful discussions with Mike Lowe of Summerleaze and Councillor Mandy Brar we anticipate the barrier on the bridge north of  Strand Water will be modified in the near future to allow pedestrians to cross. Horse riders will be prohibited.”

Well done Cookham Society that is great news. Out of interest why are horse riders prohibited?

This a privately owned bridge on a private track on private land. There is no public Right of Way. Access for pedestrians is being made available by the generosity of the land owner. We are very grateful for this. This bridge provides a link between two well used footpaths that are Rights of Way. Cyclists and horses are not allowed on these public footpaths.
 
Horses and cyclists raise additional issues of risks to members of the public and themselves as well as damage to tracks. Most land owners restrict access to cyclists and horse riders when they can.

Great news Summerleaze have decided to voluntarily open the track. I do notice they have not volunteered an official Public Right Of Way. Evidence for an official footpath across that section is extremely strong and I would advise any concerned Cookhamite to continue with the legal claim. A permitted path can always be closed at any time without notice (which they've already done once).
If I was more cynical I'd say the voluntary path proposed by Summerleaze is an attempt to distract from the legal claim, run down the clock a little more then close it when the evidence is a little less solid. Thankfully I'm a cheery sort so that's not where my mind wanders.
Anyway once again, great news. But worth keeping in mind Summerleaze have volunteered a lesser version of what they will be forced to do in the future. Might be a conversation worth having. - M

That is fantastic news TaylorMadeLiveries. Come on Cookham Society let's go for an official footpath, so we don't have this problem again.

Good news! The Strand Bridge gate has been installed thanks to the land owner (Summerleaze) and this useful route is now open as a permissive path.

Good to know of this progress. Tho I was surprised at talk of there being no footpath there previously as the clearing of the adjacent vegetation showed up an old partly-bricked path that had obviously been there for ages.