Footpath 181

the place on the chorlton bulletin board for vegetable-spread related chatter and other matters...it's the first, the best and it's currently hack free.
StePee
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:10 pm

Back on topic, I saw on Victor wotsit's blog, that the council are proposing a new bridge an re-route of the path.
Does anyone know what influence at the Council the owners of 1,3,5,7 South Drive have?, that this is even being considered (presumably at our expense), rather than have them pay to reinstate the land previously stolen from the public?
All of those properties have been sold in the last 10 years, so there's no way the present owners' lawyers wouldn't've bought the existence of the illegally obstructed footpath to their attention during searches etc.

stephennewton
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:24 pm
Location: Anchorside Close, M21 8AR
Contact:

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:51 pm

I'd somehow missed Victor's blog, but as StePee says it does look like three or four South Drive residents have a ridiculous amount of influence. Council officers told the directors of Anchorside Close -- very informally -- that they could install a prefab bridge 'quite cheaply' at around £20k. It would be on our land, so they'd need our permission. We've said no, but they're consulting anyway. That means respondents to the consultation could overwhelmingly support a particular diversion only for Anchorside Close to veto it.

They would also need permission from Rainbow Close or Meade Manor for the options that include a bridge. I hope they say no too, just so we're clear. (Although, I suspect the housing association that manages Meade Manor may well give permission regardless of what the tenants might think.) The council's consultation letter explains that three or four South Drive residents have 'invested' in their gardens, by which they mean 'unlawfully extended them over a public footpath'. The council then suggests that Rainbow Close or Meade Manor give up some of their lawfully acquired gardens so South Drive can keep that land. We don't see why they should.

We think the path should be cleared along its existing line, although we do dispute the line. Essentially, we believe the true line of the footpath is what the council describes as option 5. This is consistent with the court judgement, but most interestingly the council's 'default' route contradicts its responses to conveyancers so if it's 'default' wins the day, it will face a significant claim for negligence. But this issue only affects Oakhouse Drive and Anchorside Close, so offers no succour to those who have unlawfully extended their gardens and there is a workaround.

The law says the landowners are responsible for unlawful obstructions and should pay to remove them (including the council's legal costs). If it's diverted along a new line, the council will obviously have to pay all the associated costs and pay compensation to landowners all along the new route. So any diversion will be more expensive.

No.1 South Drive is unaffected. It only impacts on the very ends of the gardens of 3, 5 and 7 (and maybe 9). The most significant obstructions are two wooden fences, so the cost to landowners is minimal. We on Anchorside Close will need to remove a fence and have been quoted just £45. There are some other costs that will befall the council, but we reckon they'd get change from £5k (excluding the cost of this already failed consultation).

StePee
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:09 pm

stephennewton wrote:The law says the landowners are responsible for unlawful obstructions and should pay to remove them (including the council's legal costs). If it's diverted along a new line, the council will obviously have to pay all the associated costs and pay compensation to landowners all along the new route. So any diversion will be more expensive.


This being the case, I really can't see how doing anything other than that, at cost to the public, would not indicate some form of corruption in the Council.

Repeated attempts at completely un-objective 'surveys' to give credence to alternative proposals only serve to illustrate why the whole situation warrants a thorough and impartial audit.

User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:06 pm

Unsurprised that the Chorltonville Stepfordians are grinding their teeth. They stole land, pure and simple, now they should have to give it back, regardless of "investment". I'd say oppose anything other than the original footpath, as is the law.

I cannot STAND Victor Chamberlain. He's like the LibDem version of Tory Boy.... and his blog is constantly plastered with planning applications.. (Is that really the job of a councillor, to over-publicise planning applications so that NIMBYs can object?)
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

Richard_H
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Richard_H » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:19 pm

Walked past the Claude Road entrance to Footpath 181 yesterday - it used to be boarded up but now it's been kicked in.

Is the to give us a taste of the impending carnage due from the hoardes of invading scallies from Wythenshawe once the Hardy Lane tram stop is open, or has Stephen been trying to get early access? :wink:

StePee
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:43 pm

No idea, but the Law is that anyone can move any obstructions along the way, to exercise their Right to pass and re-pass (sic).
If more people had done so over the years, the present situation wouldn't be as it is.

belperfury
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Chorlton

Re: Footpath 181

Postby belperfury » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:52 am

StePee wrote:No idea, but the Law is that anyone can move any obstructions along the way, to exercise their Right to pass and re-pass (sic).
If more people had done so over the years, the present situation wouldn't be as it is.


not sure how this would have stopped the houses and gardens on anchorside close being built over the footpath.

given that the houses had planning permission, it would have more likely resulted in an arrest for vandalism or damage to property.

User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:56 pm

Much as I hate reviving old threads.... did we ever get a resolution to this, or are Chamberlain's NIMBYs still bumping their gums?
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

StePee
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:48 am

I suspect the Council are sitting tight, hoping it's been forgotten about again. Likewise the people who stole the footpath to extend their private gardens.

User avatar
Mr Squirrel
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: Beech Road

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Mr Squirrel » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:38 pm

One thing has changed recently. Footpath 181 would now be a great short cut for everyone around the Claude Rd and Brookburn Rd areas to get to the tram stop at Mauldeth Rd. Has anyone told these residents that their rightful route to the tram is being blocked by a few selfish people on South Drive?
A short attention span is very... Oh look, chocolate!

User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:02 pm

I thought it was a done deal... council found guilty, forced to sort it out and open up the path? Why hasn't this been done, a year later??
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

StePee
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:23 pm

There was the inquiry, with alternative proposals for the route, and questionnaire, but I've heard nothing since.

belperfury
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Chorlton

Re: Footpath 181

Postby belperfury » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:26 pm

despite this forum's focus on the chorltonville properties selfishly stealing land and extending their garden (i think the only barriers relate to a single property, with the other being self-seeded trees or the responsibility of meade manor), the council is probably still trying to sort out the bugger's muddle with the properties on anchorside close that were built over the footpath since it was last accessible.

in order to receive planning permission for the anchorside close properties to be built, the right of way should have been extinguished or at least rerouted. this never happened and the property developers were allowed to build over it leaving a bit of a conundrum.

the likely outcome is that a number of anchorside close properties will have to have a footpath running straight through the middle of their garden when the path is re-established, but this will probably require another court date to divert the footpath from underneath their houses.

StePee
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:15 pm

The developers who built Anchorside Close's lawyers ought to be dusting off their insurance documents I suppose…

User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:23 pm

Maybe that's the delay then... all the lawyers and insurance people seeing what they can make out of this farrago.

I still say it needs 30 people to turn up with a mini digger and just plough through :)
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young


Return to “Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests