Once upon a time, there was a bridge. Some say it was built by fairies.
“It lasted about four or five weeks before the National Trust took it down in a dawn raid,” says Ian Curtis. “The police were informed. But, of course, the fairies were watching and they put another one up. A better one this time, which is much harder to take down.”
The tale of Stiffkey bridge began in February 2022, when the Trust removed the original footbridge linking the village of Stiffkey to the magnificent salt marshes and sand dunes of the north Norfolk coast. This move, on grounds that the bridge had become unsafe, sparked a row between the villagers and the guardian of the nation’s heritage that has rumbled on for more than 18 months and has led to the creation of what, according to a scribbled sign, is The Stiffkey Fairy Bridge.
The bridge is about five metres long and the width of just a single wooden plank, supported by scaffolding poles and a handrail for support.
It’s no feat of engineering, but offers an alternative to wading through the creek and scrambling down its banks at low tide, and possibly a lifeline at high tide when other routes are cut off.
Curtis is the convener of the Rebuild Stiffkey Marsh Bridge campaign, which he set up in January after losing faith in the National Trust’s intentions to build a replacement.
“It’s quite obvious to me, right from the start, that their prime objective was to stop people going on the marsh,” he says, standing in his wellies in the October drizzle. “But people have been going on here for hundreds of years.”
Curtis grew up in Stiffkey and came to the marshes to play with his friends, sometimes watching the cocklewomen walk out to the sands to dig up Stiffkey Blues, the blue-shelled cockles (the thing for which Stiffkey was best known until the demise in 1937 of Harold Davidson, a defrocked vicar who had been the Rector of Stiffkey, then became a circus lion tamer and was mauled to death). As a young man, Curtis worked as a wormdigger on the marshes, selling lugworms for fishing bait, then became a commercial beekeeper and now runs a local alpaca trekking firm.
“It’s a fantastic place,” he says. “People come here samphiring [gathering samphire], cockling, walking, bird watching. They go fishing, catching bass and you get canoes as well.”
Since the campaign group began trying to chivvy the trust into action, enlisting support of their Tory MP, Duncan Baker, there have been firmer commitments to replace the bridge. Now it says it had needed to decide “whether replacement is the right option” and paused work in 2022 to “weigh up the cost, the impact on wildlife in a protected area, sustainability in the face of sea-level rise, as well as the provision of access”.
The villagers’ chief argument is about the safety of people who can get on to the marshes using some of the other bridges and footpaths nearby. In April, the RNLI had to rescue two people and a dog who had been stranded on Stiffkey Marshes when the tide came in. Curtis says they had believed the bridge was still there.
So one morning in July, a makeshift bridge appeared. “I came down in the morning and there it was,” Curtis says. “The National Trust were furious. They came down and put tape around it, then they put a sign up.”
A few weeks later the bridge was removed but then the second structure arrived, amid reports the National Trust had called in the police.
Was it Curtis’s work really though? Or a supporter? “I couldn’t possibly say,” he says. “It’s all a mystery.” He pauses. “I’d be no good at putting up a bridge.” He admits he has been involved in the building trade, and is keen to point out the second bridge does not quite touch National Trust land, one reason why the first was removed. The creek bed and banks are Natural England responsibility.
The new fairy bridge was getting plenty of use last week from anglers, bird watchers and walkers, and although the mist was beginning to rise there was no sign of either fairies or the Screaming Cockler, the ghost of a cocklewoman said to have drowned.
Chris Shoebottom was out walking with his daughter Claire and grandchildren Jacob and Lola during half-term. “In today’s health-and-safety-conscious world, it’s lovely that this is here,” he said. “It’s a rickety old bridge and the risk is all yours, and for that I’m grateful to the fairies.”
Norfolk Constabulary officers told the Observer that although they had been informed, they were not investigating the bridge. The National Trust says it is now going ahead with plans to replace the bridge, at a cost of £250,000, but needs planning permission and expects the new structure to be in place by autumn 2024.
Stiffkey parish council has tried to create a dialogue between villagers and the trust, with several public meetings. Martin Williams, council chair, said: “Our main thrust has always been safety. It’s a threatening place if you get the tides wrong, and people do panic. There’s no apparent means of escape without the bridge.
“There are some very extreme views here with people saying that it’s a criminal act by the National Trust and other people saying leave the place alone. But the majority view is that everybody’s extremely disappointed and want the bridge back.”
Williams added that there were concerns that other parts of the marshes were being damaged.
“There are five other bridges which are part of a public right of way onto the sands. There’s now significant additional footfall. If you funnel people into one area they’ll do more damage than if they’re spread out, and over the last two summers you can see how much damage has been done.”
A National Trust spokesperson said: “The National Trust understands the removal of Stiffkey bridge is a cause for concern for the local community. We had previously repaired and extended the bridge.
“However, further widening of the channel and the age and condition of the bridge meant our only option was to remove the bridge following specialist advice. We are progressing with our plan to replace it in 2024.
“What makes this project complex is the multiple ownership, multiple designations, multiple permissions and the construction regulations we need to follow to ensure that we build a bridge that’s legally compliant, robust, safe and suitable for this inter-tidal coastal location.”
