Broadwater Path

BroadwaterI learnt today that Surrey’s Countryside Officer has received formal notice of objection to the Broadwater Path from St George’s School on grounds of safeguarding.

I know that many people will be disappointed at this turn of events, especially given that St George’s School already has a public footpath passing through its grounds.

I trust that the matter can be resolved quickly as it was expected that the construction of the path could begin this spring.  This path, walked by many, including me, for several decades, was awarded £110,000 by Elmbridge to enable people with disabilities to progress from Weybridge to Cowey Sale with ramped bridges over the Broadwater and Engine Rivers.

This would only be the first stage because once the path was in place it would open up the possibility of public funding for essential maintenance of the lake, which is pressingly needed.

As ever, I’ll keep you posted with developments.

3 thoughts on “Broadwater Path

  1. I am confused as to how the school can object on the grounds of ‘safeguarding’

    They were fully aware of the existence of ‘footpath 40′ and right of way ’36’ when they bought the land. With the right of way plus the public playing field off Grenside Road opening on three sides directly onto their land, how can blocking 300m of this wonderful footpath which has been in existence for many years change the safety of the children in any way?

    Since the school is a primary school, one would expect the children to be supervised at all times!

    In addition, the land purchased does not extend to the South bank of the Broadwater Lake. It is clear from many earlier planning applications by Broadwater Farm and Greenlands Farm, (1996/0689), (2001/1280) and (2003/1716) for example, that
    1. the footpath has been in existence from 1996 and
    2. that the land boundary of the land only extends half way across the Broadwater Lake and most certainly does not extend as far as the back gardens of the houses on Greenlands Road

    Also while I agree with Richard H (above) that the school have done a lovely job of developing the land beside the Engine River and Footpath 36, I object strongly to the accusation that the ‘Local Community’ has done ‘nothing except litter the place up!!’ That accusation is inflammatory, unfounded and completely unnecessary and I would request that it is withdrawn.

    I very much look forward to a quick and amiable resolution to this problem, and to the opening of this lovely walk to all visitors as soon as is possible

  2. Actually I’ve worked closely with St Georges whilst they redevelop the 40 acres they recently acquired. They have done a good job (albeit on behalf of the school), in transforming neglected land into something more appealing, the local community had done nothing except litter the place up. We now have our teaching apiary on their land. I know the school is keen to do more, and I suspect it’s simply a function of the right lobbying, happy to help if I can, let me know.

  3. St George’s knew about this proposed footpath when they acquired the land. It’s mean spirited of them to object considering the fact that they cannot do anything with the land as its floodplain/green belt. Let’s hope the council (who have been negligent in not registering this footpath earlier and in allowing this situation to arise) can convince the school by refusing any change of use applications the school submits. Further, the school adds nothing to the community other than traffic congestion and air pollution and so its charitable status should be revoked. The school thinks it owns Broadwater lake when it is the EA that does!
    Footpath 36 is impossible to use when the kiss and drop scheme is in operation – they have no right to block a right of way.

Leave a Reply to Clare Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *