Cockshoot

[Polly]

Well I did but without the armament!!! :)

[marshman]

Hi Strow - I believe now everything has been signed and it now falls on the BA to schedule necessary works to ensure the path can FINALLY be used!!!

Quite what requires to be done I am not surer but it is still progressing, albeit slowly.

I am hopeful we are nearly there but I have been here before so will not get too excited - yet!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Hi Strow - I believe now everything has been signed and it now falls on the BA to schedule necessary works to ensure the path can FINALLY be used!!!

Quite what requires to be done I am not surer but it is still progressing, albeit slowly.

I am hopeful we are nearly there but I have been here before so will not get too excited - yet!

Thanks for the feedback from the meeting Marshman, I noticed the footpath was on the minutes.

It is good news, but without wanting to sound pessimistic, this stage has indeed been announced before, so it still might get "forgotten".

The amount of actual groundwork required appears to be very minimal, with just a short length of path to be created, so presumably it will mostly be fencing. There does not appear to be the need for any bridges over dykes, as there is an existing spit of land left by the EA in just the right place. They used it themselves to get their heavy machinery along the dyke from their plant yard at the top of this aerial view.

[sos247]

 After nearly 7 years you would have thought they would have achieved more however, even the current plan is not 'exactly' correct........ i.e. in Strowager detailed good photo,  the 'red' line is not the 'permissible' foot path.....

In fact, its never really been looked at yet! Luckily in the historic past, footpaths, bridlepaths & other public right of ways were mapped/drawn by qualified & experienced people, and they generally still work today unless of major land developments etc. However, in this particular instance the EA don't even know if they own the piece of land (with all  its relevant liabilities etc), plus don't even fully understand that the premissive footpath only starts/crosses field/includes Hundred Dyke, which is on the Horning Parish boundary. 

ive walked the path several times with the EA & BA etc (when they could be bothered, wrong shoes on), but despite them having all the various maps etc, they just don't understand! 
Even on the day in question, all they were interested in was applying for some sort a 'legal status' that protects the EA if ramblers tripped or fell over on that footpath!! Just so they were legally protected against insurance claims!!!! That was their No1 priority during a visit, after which they had to visit/apply for this at the NN council to sort it.
It just annoys me that they don't instead....
1. make sure they make a nice safe walk way for people ,
2. make sure people are legally supported with some insurance if they tripped over the EA's poorly maintained footpath, broke an angle, couldnt work for 6 months etc,
3. maybe even with wheelchair or buggy access for a short distance....
4. with a viewing platform for bird watchers,
5.....plus a few dog bins/litter bins.  
and 6. maybe even formerly recruit a volunteer who will walk to footpath on a regular basis and pick up letter/bottles/tins etc which is all harmful to wildlife.....plus advise them with any problems....  

The next step should be a detailed legal map, plus later on a few signs....??,  

So visitors to the area will use it.....!  Rather than the odd local dog walker, who prefers to leave dog crap everywhere in the middle of the footpath.....  

PS - i also say that 99% of walkers heading towards the bridge, will take the shortest route via the boatyard, so 'half a job' is almost pointless to do anyway....... !!
At least it justified a few BA meetings, and 'day out' visits to the area from the EA.............

Regards from Jason
Note - Semi retired, and no longer involved with this footpath......!!!, apart from a Victor Meldrew point of view!!       

    

[marshman]

Why am I surprised about any of those things but what I believe is missing off your list is the fact that the user also has to show a duty of care!!!, There must be many many thousands of miles of footpaths where an action for "a broken ankle" incurred on a footpath would be unsuccessful, and indeed if it were, would probably lead to the closure of all footpaths!!

What is required is a realistic approach to this type of issue - I dont want necessarily a buggy path, a litter bin, or a viewing platform and I certainly don't want insurance, but what I do want is the right to enjoy the countryside I share with others at, mostly, my risk!! I am not talking about risks from excavators, or heavy machinery but the normal risks you would expect on a footpath. Given the attitude of the EA I am surprised I am still allowed outdoors to wander river banks and indeed through many many farmyards!

Why is that too much to ask?? 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, sos247 said:

 After nearly 7 years you would have thought they would have achieved more however, even the current plan is not 'exactly' correct........ i.e. in Strowager detailed good photo,  the 'red' line is not the 'permissible' foot path.....

In fact, its never really been looked at yet! Luckily in the historic past, footpaths, bridlepaths & other public right of ways were mapped/drawn by qualified & experienced people, and they generally still work today unless of major land developments etc. However, in this particular instance the EA don't even know if they own the piece of land (with all  its relevant liabilities etc), plus don't even fully understand that the premissive footpath only starts/crosses field/includes Hundred Dyke, which is on the Horning Parish boundary.........

The  red dotted "existing" footpath was well used before Laurie generously introduced the permissive footpaths around the area under the Countryside Stewardship scheme, (which have now sadly been rescinded).

The majority of the footpath runs along the top of the flood wall which didn't exist before the EA created it at the start of their 20 year flood alleviation program, creating a linear "island" between the new set back flood bank and the new larger soke dyke.

These photos that I took in 2008 before it was closed at the boatyard end show that it was (and probably still is) a normal grass topped field type footpath with little evidence of the range of hazards that are being used as an excuse to not re-open it.

The stitched panorama showing the location of the new link shows that no ground work is in fact required at all to be able to walk along it now, just permission.

 

[Guest]

Here's another photo of the "hazardous" riverside footpath, taken a year later, in May 2009.

Facing upriver towards Ludham Bridge, about half way down to Ant Mouth.

(it shows the Ba's infamous green cones that were placed there at that time... )

 

[sos247]

On 23 November 2015 09:18:24, Strowager said:

The  red dotted "existing" footpath was well used

FACT - Both Peggy and Tony who live at the cottage, have said on many occasions that the route beside the river was NOT used on a regular basis........Their family have lived there for 6 generations, plus they built the shop etc, so there isn't much they don't know about LB! Anyway, it was brambles 90% of the route, plus Tony and his father used to 'shoot' in that direction most weekends.....and they rarely shot anyone! 

It is agreed however the route used more during/after the flood defence was being sorted, it was much clearer plus a great viewing point.  

Personally I believe this was the ideal time to legally sort the rights of way & footpath, with the different parishes, councils & landowners etc.  Sadly, it comes back to the EA/BA working with the land owners at that time! Even in this instance, the EA basically pinched some land without any authorisation from the current landowners, therefore minor arguments were already causing a few issues! So footpaths & rights of way discussions, were not a priority at that time 

In hindsight, someone should have managed, changed & created all the various 'new' rights of way, during all the flood defence changes/work in the area.....    

Also Peggy & Tony at the cottage have always also said that 'the odd friendly local person walking past the cottage (front room windows) was never a major problem during the summer season'. However, opening a formal route via the boatyard as a 'Public footpath' could now be a problem, this is mainly why the route around the field was chosen (plus safety for walkers crossing at the bridge).

 Unfortunately, due to the boatyard also having its red diesel stolen (Prior 2010). plus outboards & boats being stolen from the basin & moorings, AND then the possibility that the odd person would claim for a grazed angle or muddied Hunter boots via 'no win, no fee' solicitors, the route via the boatyard was problematic.  At the time our Public liability insurance was also an extra £2000 for the moorings etc, and as the business was a 'company', the directors (me!), could be legally be prosecuted on these type of liability issues.......So at the time, our insurance company advised that it was the better option for myself to try & open up the alternative route......Which will soon happen hopefully!...... Tony Lumbard is on the case and he is now on the parish council, so he will sort it.  

 Amazingly people just walk anywhere they want to sometimes, if I was craning at the boatyard people have also just crossed into the garden of the cottage and walked out of their main drive way.......... People just don't care sometimes, but when you are lost most people are the same! So this is why footpath routes are on maps, and should remain this way..... 

Im going to leave this subject now to you guys, but keep me posted as even myself enjoyed that walk with my dogs (until i kept standing in dog c**p that stupid people had left in the middle of the footpath! Its also been found in the entrance path to the boatyard, sadly a few people just spoil it for others)

regards

jason

 

  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sos247 said:

......It is agreed however the route used more during/after the flood defence was being sorted, it was much clearer plus a great viewing point. .......

Yes indeed, just before it was closed at the Ludham Bridge end.

It was becoming very well used, for a couple of years, with views like these. I passed a great many hikers, as the word got round.

(I don't much like walking through dog cr*p either, and I would never walk through a private garden).

[sos247]

These photos are dated 2009, and the person who took these photos had lived at the boatyard (on a boat) since the early 90's...........

Its fairly clear to me, and as every 'right of way' or footpath in the UK, there has to be a formal & legal agreement between the parties involved.......Anyone not involved just causes confusion!

As ive said previously it will be sorted in time!  

[Guest]

...and to keep things right up to date and accurate,

The permissive footpath shown in those maps that ran alongside the hundred dyke no longer exists.

The signs and stile at the St Benets roadway end were removed a couple of years ago when the Ludham Hall permissive footpaths were closed.

[sos247]

Yes, as its states in all finished in September 2011...... Sadly before that date the signs were very often removed and chucked into the river or ditch!

On one particular sunny day and guy on motocross motorbike, drove up the footpath, and removed & smashed the EA's sign and chucked them in the ditch.......he then left the same route he came! Some lovely people who did at times use that route, verbally threatened staff, but always at a distance! 

On one occasion a local said to me that he had "been walking the footpath since I was a boy, and i'm going to take you to f**king court"..........but as i said to him "if he had got off his ba***de and raised the issue via the normal legal channels & in a professional manner, it may have been sorted".........  

During my time at the yard i only saw him twice, and that was the same week! Sadly some people just make it up as they go along.......          

[Guest]

You certainly paint footpath walkers in an ugly light Jason.

I'm very relieved to say that in over fifteen years of very regularly walking the many footpaths in the area I've only ever come across friendly law-abiding people enjoying the countryside.

I can't say I've seen any signs defaced or thrown into the river either, and I've never seen a motorbike on any of them, even on the Weaver's Way or the Wherryman's Way.

I lived the greater part of my life in or near London, so the Norfolk countryside is still a breath of fresh air with regard to crime and vandalism.

[MauriceMynah]

It is with considerable regret that I have to say my experience with footpath walkers is far more in alignment with Jasons.

There is a public footpath at the back and one side of our property here, walked by little short of 1000 people per month (my estimate). Obviously many of those are regulars who cause no problems and of the rest the vast majority are pleasent law abiding citizens. But it only takes one in a thousand to be obnoxious or litter throwing and we have an unpleasent issue once a month.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

It is with considerable regret that I have to say my experience with footpath walkers is far more in alignment with Jasons.

There is a public footpath at the back and one side of our property here, walked by little short of 1000 people per month (my estimate). Obviously many of those are regulars who cause no problems and of the rest the vast majority are pleasent law abiding citizens. But it only takes one in a thousand to be obnoxious or litter throwing and we have an unpleasent issue once a month.

Would that footpath be in a town or city MM ? or across open fields ?

I agree that footpaths in built-up areas are too often a magnet for yobs and vandals.

Two of my previous properties were bordered by public footpaths, and I will never make that mistake again.