I think you're confusing a right of way with legal ownership. The vast majority of rights of way (and rights to roam) in this country are in private ownership.I remember as a kid being driven on the old road from Fisherman's crossing to South Gare probably early 50s. It went through the old Warrenby works and you were dodging trains etc. I was terrified
I've driven a thousand and one times since to the Gare without let, hindrance or payment. I'd suggest therefore that it is a public road and owned by neither of them
Worked on a few developments where the developer buys a parcel of land, the designs are cracked on with, the legalities are all finalised......until a random/rogue little piece of land "assumed to be owned by x" right bang in the middle of a development suddenly becomes a ransom strip.I think you're confusing a right of way with legal ownership. The vast majority of rights of way (and rights to roam) in this country are in private ownership.
I think you're confusing a right of way with legal ownership. The vast majority of rights of way (and rights to roam) in this country are in private ownership.
That is forensic in its analysis. Well done NE Bylines.
I'm assuming it's maintained by the landowner. If it was the local authority then it would be part of the adopted highway and there would be no dispute about rights of way, etc.Be interesting to see a court case to establish what seems like, having been used by generations of people, a very obvious public right of way.
“ The 20-year rule explained. The legislation is clear when it states that for a right of way to be claimed by prescription it must have been used for a period of at least 20 years. This must be for a full 20 years, which is not always straightforward to establish”
Did the local authorities or the owner of the works maintain the road?
Or does that matter?
Suppose we could always have the headchoppers in charge like up there eh.Gibson acted like the Tory tvvat he is.
The last railway remnants of the Warrenby works site can be found on the road that was built around the works. This is the road to the South Gate that all of the fuss has been about. There was a level crossing here, and the rails are still embedded into the road, probably because it was too expensive to remove them.I remember as a kid being driven on the old road from Fisherman's crossing to South Gare probably early 50s. It went through the old Warrenby works and you were dodging trains etc. I was terrified
I've driven a thousand and one times since to the Gare without let, hindrance or payment. I'd suggest therefore that it is a public road and owned by neither of them
ExtremistSuppose we could always have the headchoppers in charge like up there eh.
You a barcode?Extremist
I may have been a bit sloppy there. There is little doubt in my mind that the current road is a public Highway. If the public highway closes or is abandoned then the land will revert to the owner. That is correctI think you're confusing a right of way with legal ownership. The vast majority of rights of way (and rights to roam) in this country are in private ownership.
Why equate one with another? Gibson is a way better owner than the Saudi regime, but he's still a bellend in the context of this story. The two don't have to be linked.Suppose we could always have the headchoppers in charge like up there eh.
It's deflection, pure and simple.Why equate one with another? Gibson is a way better owner than the Saudi regime, but he's still a bellend in the context of this story. The two don't have to be linked.
I may have been a bit sloppy there. There is little doubt in my mind that the current road is a public Highway. If the public highway closes or is abandoned then the land will revert to the owner. That is correct
I could not and cannot understand what they were fighting about in this particular case.
It's adopted public highway until you get to the old level crossing that you referred to. Immediately after that point, there's a sign that says "Private Road - no unauthorised vehicles beyond this point".The basic principles are if a right of way has been used for over 20 years without LET HINDRANCE or PAYMENT then it is a public right of way.
I have never paid. My presence has never been questioned and so far as I recollect there are no suggestions that I should not be there.
I have no knowledge of maintenance.
The adjoining land is owned by the local council and was acquired from the Duke of somewhere in Scotland in the 1950s. It was subsequently leased to the Golf Club
It maybe therefore that the local council has a co extensive moiety over half the width of the road if the deeds are not clear
I don’t think we need it in this case.. are they saying there is no longer public access?England should have right to roam like Scotland.
I can recall that a private security company was contracted by the port authority to deny public access to the S Gare one day p.a. This was to assert that there was no public right of way. They would turn cars around at the crossing.The basic principles are if a right of way has been used for over 20 years without LET HINDRANCE or PAYMENT then it is a public right of way.
I have never paid. My presence has never been questioned and so far as I recollect there are no suggestions that I should not be there.
I have no knowledge of maintenance.
The adjoining land is owned by the local council and was acquired from the Duke of somewhere in Scotland in the 1950s. It was subsequently leased to the Golf Club
It maybe therefore that the local council has a co extensive moiety over half the width of the road if the deeds are not clear
Do the council not have anyone to protect public rights of way or important buildings..I can recall that a private security company was contracted by the port authority to deny public access to the S Gare one day p.a. This was to assert that there was no public right of way. They would turn cars around at the crossing.