The Black Potts footbridge problem is an item on the RBWM Council Meeting Agenda for 15 July 2025. You will find a very short (45 second) YouTube video here
WARNING: THIS FOOTBRIDGE IS AT RISK OF COLLAPSE.
Barrier previously as shown below:
I raised this issue previously in November 2023 as follows:
RBWM Council Meeting – November 2023 – Question 41. Councillors’ Questions
a) Councillor Larcombe asked the following question of Councillor Coe, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services
The November 2023 Question:
The construction of the Jubilee River by the Environment Agency over two decades ago resulted in more than twenty new or modified bridges. Can you tell me please – how many of these bridges are now partially or wholly the responsibility of RBWM?
Written response in November 2023: Only a small section of the Jubilee River passes through the borough and according to our records, the structures for which RBWM are wholly responsible for are:
2610 BLACK POTTS FOOTBRIDGE
2453 POCOCKS LANE
2756 THE MYRKE FOOTBRIDGE (aka MICHAELS BRIDGE)
My November 2023 Supplementary Question:
Councillor Larcombe thanked Councillor Coe for his answer. He stated that the Jubilee River was now called the Jubilee Flood Relief Channel. The Berry Hill Footbridge, which is not in the borough, was removed as it failed and was removed about two years ago. It is due to be replaced by Bucks County Council at a total cost of about £500,000. He stated that it had cost £100,000 to remove the 35m long footbridge. Dorney Wetlands footbridge, also not located in the borough, decking had already failed. Slough Borough Council were responsible for that bridge. He believed that the Council’s two timber bridges located at Black Potts and The Myrke were at the end of their lives. He estimated that the removal and replacement costs would exceed £2m. He stated that the Environment Agency who had designed and installed these bridges had cut the costs at every opportunity. He asked that, given the Environment Agency designed and installed these bridges, was it fair and reasonable that the RBWM
budget should have to bear these costs? He queried how the Council had taken on the responsibility for these things.
The November 2023 Answer:
Councillor Coe replied that he had been supplied with the condition reports and the opinion of the chartered engineer at Project Centre was that all three bridges were basically sound.
There may need to be some work in replacing the decks on the wooden bridges but the structural elements were in good order. He did not think the council would be worrying about a £2m cost in the very near future. In relation to the adoption of the bridges, he confirmed that they had been adopted, they were the council’s responsibility including the third bridge across Pococks Lane which carries the road from Eaton to Datchet near to Thames Valley Athletic Centre to be maintained. He advised that he was still waiting for detailed advice to confirm whether the council had to adopt them or was a choice. He noted the adoptions of the structures occurred about the same time as local government reorganisation in Berkshire which complicated the tracking of this issue for officers.
Link to RBWM November 2023 Minutes
Now we move on 18 months from November 2023 to July 2025:
My July 2025 Question Agenda Item 8
Councillor To-Follow Question
Councillor Larcombe will ask the following question of Councillor Hill, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transport and Customer Service Centre: This answer was originally listed in the agenda to be answered by Councillor Coe but will be answered by Councillor Hill as it falls under his Cabinet Member portfolio.
The July 2025 question:
At our Council meeting in November 2023 and in answer to my Member Question, you reported that Black Potts Footbridge on Datchet Footpath 4 was found to be ‘basically sound’. In June 2025 barriers were erected to prevent use of the Black
Potts footbridge. What is the problem please?
(Below is the July 2025 written answer to my substantive question that was received prior to meeting)
The Project Centre undertook inspections of Black Potts FB (2610) as per the RBWM Structures Inspections schedule. They undertook a General Inspection in the year 20/21 and a Principal Inspection in the year 23/24.
The GI inspection was undertaken on 03 November 2020 when the structure was found on pg. 4 in a Very Good condition.
The PI inspection was undertaken on 19th December 2023 and the overall condition of the structure on pg. 14 is found to be Fair. Reports received by the Public Rights of Way team on 28th January 2025 about the bridge prompted emails to The Project Centre asking for the latest inspection report.
The Project Centre Structures team confirmed on 3rd February 2025 that “It’s clear from the recent site photograph that this has deteriorated quicker than we expected over the last year”.
A temporary closure order is in place for Datchet Footpath 4 and Eton Footpath 38 (part) with signage and fencing placed on site to prevent access to Blackpotts footbridge. The barriers keep being moved so we are aiming to monitor and keep
fenced off. The Project Centre have provided a brief assessment of two options based on the timber specialist report, either insitu repairs or replacement of the footbridge.
Insitu repairs are a short-term solution aimed at replacing and/or strengthening targeted components. This may be expensive relative to the longevity of the repair, which is estimated to be around 5 years.
Replacement is the long-term solution which would be better value for money but could mean the footbridge has to stay closed for a longer time while design and logistics are arranged.
The Project Centre say a detailed options report can be prepared if required and all is dependent on funding available.
I have requested and received a copy of the Principle Inspection Report dated 19 December 2023.
(TO BE INSERTED HERE – Inspection Report – shortcomings and errors)
The text of my supplementary question is shown below.
Thank you Cllr. Hill. I tried to warn this Council in November 2023 that there were problems with these timber footbridges.
Only 18 months ago I was informed that ‘in the opinion of the chartered engineer at Project Centre the bridges were basically sound. There may need to be some work in replacing the decks on the wooden bridges but the structural elements were in good order. The Councillor did not think the Council would be worrying about a £2m cost in the very near future.
I do think this Council should be very concerned about the costs and who pays and I am still awaiting an answer as to how the Council came to adopt these bridges in the first place.
I see signs of negligence here – actually tending towards gross or reckless negligence. On paper – RBWM is clearly responsible but who should be held accountable for the design, manufacture and construction of infrastructure (timber footbridges) with a known and relatively short design life. In my opinion these timber bridges were sub-standard in concept and the result of cost-cutting at every stage by the Environment Agency. These bridges should be noted on the risk register.
This problem actually crosses the geo-political boundaries. Temple, Berry Hill, Ashford Lane, The Myrke, Black Potts and other timber footbridges may be the responsibility of different authorities but they are all in the same boat – the Authorities that is – not the footbridges.
The Environment Agency should not be allowed to pass the buck and hide. They should be held accountable, they should apologise and they should pay – not the local Council Tax payers. Will you mobilise the MP’s to raise this matter in Parliament please? END OF SUPPLEMETARY QUESTION.
The images below contain some clues that may help with the answer
Black Potts – timber splitting
Black Potts – timber splitting and hidden decay
Ashford Lane timber footbridge closed
Ashford Lane timber footbridge collapsed
You will find the RBWM Agenda for the 15-7-2025 meeting here
You will find the RBWM Council meeting YouTube video here
You will find the very short (45 second) Black Potts footbridge YouTube video here
And the bottom line is – who is going to pay?
END