Enforcement action could be taken against a housing developer after it removed a footbridge it had been told to build 20 years ago.
The closure means Briarswood estate residents and schoolchildren now have to walk alongside busy roads instead of a quiet rural footpath.
In response, developer Bellway has said the footbridge was on private land and that it acted following complaints about antisocial behaviour – and because the structure’s condition had deteriorated.
Biddulph Town Council said that for some years it had attempted to acquire some of the surrounding land and the footbridge without success.
Now, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, the planning authority, has warned that it could take action against Bellway if the company does not stick to the original s106 agreement it signed when the housing development was built in the 2000s to provide a footpath link from Briarswood.
Biddulph Coun Wayne Rogers took photos of the footbridge before and after its removal.
He said: “This is a public footpath that is used by many people and is also a safer route to school for children of all ages. Many councillors have major concerns about the loss of this bridge and are making enquiries about the legality of how to have it replaced.
“Yes, it needed repair, but not removal.”
He added: “Bellway boarded it up at either end, but someone, in their infinite wisdom, has kicked the boards down and the bridge has since been taken down.
“It was not in the best condition and needed repair. To me, both ends of the footbridge need concrete beds.”
He explained some of the history behind it.
“As a footpath was removed during the construction of Briarswood, part of the s106 agreement required a footbridge to be built so that residents had access from the estate to Halls Road.
“Now pedestrians face quite a detour and have to walk on roads. Some people are using the remains of the bridge lying in the brook as stepping stones to get across.”
Sarah Haydon, chief officer at Biddulph Town Council, said the town hall had been in conversations with Briarswood residents about the bridge for some years.
Survey
She said a structural survey of the bridge was needed as “major repairs” were probably required.
“There has to be a footpath there in perpetuity. Staffordshire Moorlands District Council will have to use planning powers – that we don’t have – to get something done.
“If nothing is forthcoming, maybe someone will have to go down the legal route. The footbridge needs to be there to prevent pedestrians from having to use the roads.”
She added: “It’s been frustrating for us; the town council has been keen to take on the bridge but we can’t, as we would need a lot of money and there a quite a few liabilities involved.”
Biddulph West Town and District Coun Nigel Yates posted a statement on social media from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council on Friday.
It said: “Staffordshire Moorlands District Council is aware of the removal of the bridge, which is not a council asset or on council-owned land.
“The original developer of the estate was required, under a legal agreement entered into as part of the planning permission, to provide and maintain the footpath link. We are currently liaising with the developer to seek a voluntary resolution to this situation. We are also considering options for formal enforcement action if this approach is unsuccessful.”
In a statement issued to the “Chronicle”, Bellway said: “The land in question is privately owned by Bellway and is not a public highway or designated right of way. As a result of complaints from the local community, due to ongoing antisocial behaviour on the land and the deterioration of the footbridge, we have taken steps to close access across the site and remove the bridge. This is in the interests of safety and to prevent further unauthorised use.”
Bellway added that the land in question was a nature corridor adjacent to Briarswood. The company had been in negotiations with Biddulph Town Council for it to take over the land, but an agreement had not been reached.
Bellway also said the land was not a public right of way, but was privately owned.
