Footpath campaigners are fighting plans which would mean walkers on a national trail had to wait while a university rowing club launched its boats.

The Oxford University Boat Club wants to install a swing bridge across the Thames Path, a 296km (184-mile) route along the river. Walking on the path would be disrupted to let boats and launches into the club premises. The Open Spaces Society says the plans are unacceptable and has persuaded the local council to put them on hold while talks are held.

Chris Hall, the OSS’s Oxfordshire representative, said: ‘The club plans to insert a swing bridge at the level of the towing path to enable boats and launches to get in and out of the club’s premises. The bridge would occasionally be opened to let boats through and at these times path users would either have to wait or walk round the site.

“We have had assurances from club officials that the opening of the bridge would be very infrequent. But this is not good enough.

“The society is concerned about the long-term future of the path. What happens if the club’s premises change hands and a commercial marina takes over with more frequent use of the bridge?”

The boat club did not take up the society’s suggestion that walkers be allowed round the bridge, which lies about 595m (650 yards) below Wallingford Bridge, when it is raised, using the boat club premises. Nor would it agree that binding conditions be imposed on any future owners of the bridge, limiting opening times and lengths.

Because of this, Mr Hall said, the society must oppose the order. South Oxfordshire District Council which had originally sought to introduce the order enabling the bridge to be installed, now says it will arrange talks between the parties later this month.

Meanwhile, the OSS has said it is prepared to compromise on plans to put fencing on a Worcestershire common.
Any such plans on common land need the Secretary of State’s permission and the society is consulted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The land, at Hartlebury Common near Stourport, borders the A4025 Worcester Road.

The OSS’s local representative Edgar Powell said: “We cannot understand why Worcestershire County Council proposes to fence the common when it must know that, under the Hartlebury Enclosure Act of 1815, it is illegal ‘to divide or enclose’ the common, and that it needs an Act of Parliament to revoke this clause.

“The council’s predecessor, Hereford and Worcester County Council, even published a book in 1986, entitled ‘Hartlebury Common A Social and Natural History’ in which it drew particular attention to this statutory prohibition on dividing and enclosing the common.

“Hartlebury Common is unique and needs special protection. Much of it is designated as a site of special scientific interest with rare flora and fauna.

“It is also a wonderful recreation area, greatly enjoyed by the public for walking and picnicking, and by children for playing games and running free. It is estimated that there are 200,000 visits to the common each year.

“We accept that a key element of the solution to the management of Hartlebury Common is to introduce grazing, and that this requires fencing around the edge of the common.

“While we consider such fencing would be unlawful we have been asked to comment on the council’s application to the Environment Secretary.

“We have said that we are pleased that it is proposed not to have any barbed wire, and that gates will be installed in the fencing.  The public has the right to walk and ride over every part of the common.

“However, we are deeply concerned that the proposed fencing is not truly on the boundary of the common and therefore will create 12 isolated parcels of common. In particular, fencing is proposed along both sides of the A4025, thus breaking the common into compartments. This will both be an eyesore and restrict public access.

“There are far too few commons in this country which are still open from the road and Worcestershire is fortunate in having quite a number. The proposals at Hartlebury will erode and undermine the quality of Worcestershire’s heritage.”

Mr Powell said instead there should be a 30mph speed limit, or even a 20mph limit, where the road crosses the common.

He continued: “The Planning Inspectorate is determining this application for works on the common on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment.

“We have submitted an objection to the fencing plan. If the Environment Secretary does consider that fencing can be erected, notwithstanding the 1815 Enclosure Act, we have said we shall reconsider our position provided the application is amended to place the fencing truly on the perimeter of the common, thus avoiding the creation of isolated parcels of common.

“In particular we seek the removal the fencing from alongside the road.

“But first Worcestershire County Council needs to determine whether it can lawfully erect fencing here in any case,” he added.

Kate Ashbrook

The OSS has also expressed its concern about a council’s plans to categorise footpaths in its area.

Monmouthshire County Council has told its Local Access Forum that certain paths should be downgraded to save money on maintenance and protect sensitive ecological sites.

But the society’s general secretary Kate Ashbrook says creating different grades of path cannot be justified.

She said: “Public paths are highways in law just like any road, and therefore the public has the right to use and enjoy them all, and to expect a reasonable standard of maintenance.

“We are not asking for much, just that all paths are kept clear of obstruction and are signposted as the law requires.

“However the council plans to create two categories of path: grade A, which are ‘priority paths’ and grade B which are consequently inferior.”

She said the society was disturbed to find grade-B paths would include isolated paths where few people are likely to use the route; paths in sensitive habitat areas where enhancement/greater use may create harm; and paths where the cost of improving and maintaining as a grade A cannot be justified.

She pointed out that people have a right to walk the rights of way, no matter how seldom they were used. Any cost justification would be a subjective one, and even when paths were in sensitive areas, they are still public highways. If the council believed there was a problem, they should apply to move them.

She said: “We have recommended to the council that it prioritises the types of problems not the paths themselves.

“Just about every kilometre of Monmouthshire’s 2,500km [1,554 miles] of public paths are important for the public, and bring much needed income, from walkers, riders and cyclists, to the rural economy.

“Monmouthshire cannot afford to ignore its paths.”