Houchen loses in court

Rishworthian said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Billy Horner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Land ownership is mad, who owns what and exactly where is that boundary on a 1:1250 map outlined in a thick red pen.

Anyway, I don't think Houchen and all his spin/b*llsh*t will enable him to walk away from this as he expected. Too many interested parties have their teeth into this fantastic story of corruption and enormous greed.

🤞🤞
 
Billy Horner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Is the Gazette going rogue?
This article seems to imply a criticism of BenT when he held R&C Council to ransom to get his magic roundabout built.

"On March 16 last year Mrs Gilhespie, who is also chief executive of the South Tees Development Corporation responsible for the economic regeneration of the former Redcar steelworks site - now Teesworks, wrote an-email to Mr Sampson which said: "Ben [Houchen] will release town deal money as soon as he has confirmation that you have instructed the contractor on the roundabout.”"

Teesworks report takes swipe at 'unhelpful relationships' in further conclusion from investigation

I suspect a journo may soon be found at the bottom of the Tees wearing concrete boots :D
 
Ziggy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rishworthian said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Billy Horner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Rishworthian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Rishworthian said:
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
Click to expand...
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".

Now, you state (regardless of any sign) that the public has enjoyed unhindered access on that private road for more than 20 years. That would make it a clear public right of way.

But it is not a public highway, it is still a private road. Public right of way and public highway are two different things.
 
Last edited:
Rishworthian said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
BiggEggo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do the council not have anyone to protect public rights of way or important buildings..

Oh.. yeah.. no they don’t
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top