By the Parks and Countryside Team Leader (Anthony Hurst).

The Parks and Countryside Team Leader, Anthony Hurst, informed Members that the report sought the Panel’s authorisation to publish Diversion Orders for Maidenhead Footpaths 12/16 (part) and Maidenhead 19 (part), in response to an application received from the owner of the land crossed by the footpaths. Members were informed that there would be no cost to the Council as all costs associated with the footpath diversions, (including legal and administration costs, the cost of newspaper advertisements, and the costs of works carried out on the ground) would be met by the applicant.  It was noted that indicative plans showing the proposal could be found in Appendix 1. 

The Parks and Countryside Team Leader showed Members some photos of the footpaths:

• Footpath 12/16 from point A looking south – existing route and proposed route.
• Footpath 12 – existing entrance (point B) and existing route (looking north). 
• Footpath 12 – proposed entrance (point C) and proposed route (looking north). 
• Footpath 19 – point A (looking south) and point B (looking north).
• Existing barriers to be replaced with “K” barrier – footpath 13 barrier and footpath 13 gate.
• Existing barrier to be removed – permitted cycleway link to Footpath 19.
• Existing barriers to be replaced with “K” barriers – West Mead & Strande Lane.
• Examples of “K” barriers at the Green Way (Braywick Park) and at Moores Lane (Eton Wick).

Members were referred to pages 16 & 17 of the agenda which explained who had been consulted:

o  The Local Access Forum had confirmed that in principle it had no objection to the proposed diversions, subject to a number of detailed comments (see Appendix 2).

o  Maidenhead Civic Society had confirmed that in principle it had no objection to the proposed diversions, and had submitted a number of detailed comments (see Appendix 2).

o  The East Berks Ramblers had confirmed that they supported the proposed diversions, subject to a comment about the width of the proposed new barriers (see Appendix 2).

o  Ward councillors (Maidenhead Riverside) had been consulted, and had raised no objections to the proposed diversions.

The Chairman made reference to the Local Access Forums response which could be found on page 24 of the agenda and their request that the new K barriers be set to 600mm width between the squeeze plates.  The Parks and Countryside Team Leader explained that the Local Access Forum were concerned that the new K barriers were more accessible and confirmed that they would be set at 600mm in order to keep out motorbikes but still allow access to cyclists and disability buggies.  The Panel was informed that the barriers were adjustable which meant that the steel plates could be adjusted, if needed, after the barrier had been installed.

The Parks and Countryside Team Leader confirmed that complaints regarding the existing barriers  had been received to say that some cyclists and people with pushchairs were unable to get through.

Councillor Mohammed Ilyas stated that whilst the Footpath 19 proposed diversion was ‘not on his patch’ he had visited the site and had been informed by a number of users who used the field to play football that they felt it would be an improvement to divert the path.  The Parks and Countryside Team Leader explained that it would cost approximately £1,000 per K barrier plus up to the same cost again for installation and that the new surface for Footpath 12 would likely  cost in the low thousands.  The Panel was informed that in total the proposed works would cost  in the region of £10,000, which would be met by the applicants. 

Councillor John Story suggested that a new dog waste bin could be installed on the new path and the Parks and Countryside Team Leader agreed to look into this suggestion  and if it went ahead the new bin would need to be added to the collection route.  Councillor Gary Muir added that Datchet suffered a similar problem but were able to use the general waste bins to dispose of dog waste.  The Parks and Countryside Team Leader agreed that dual use bins could be used for that purpose and were possibly more effective.

The Parks and Countryside Team Leader confirmed that most of the proposed new route of Footpath 12/16 (point A looking south) was already being used by walkers and cyclists.  The Panel was informed that the path was originally 2.5 metres wide but had grassed over on the edges  and would be widened to between the recommended 2.2metre minimum and 2.5metre general width if the proposed  diversion was approved.  The Panel was informed that the new section of the proposed Footpath 12 diversion  would have a similar surface and  would also be 2.5metres wide.

The Chairman raised the issue of flooding to which the Parks and Countryside Team Leader responded by saying that it was not something that could be addressed by these proposals. 

(Councillor Simon Werner arrived)

RESOLVED Unanimously (proposed by Councillor John Story and seconded by Councillor Gary Muir); That the Head of Communities and Highways be authorised to publish a Diversion Order for Maidenhead Footpath 12/16 (part), and Maidenhead Footpath 19 (part) as detailed in the report. If no objections were received following publication of the Orders, or any such objections were subsequently withdrawn, to confirm the Orders without further recourse to the Panel. If objections were received and not subsequently withdrawn, the proposal was to be brought back to the Panel for further consideration.  

The Chairman asked the Clerk to note that whilst Councillor Simon Werner had voted in favour of the recommendation he had not been present for the majority of the discussion around the item.