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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:25 pm

One would, in fact, say that people who have incorporated it into their gardens should be prosecuted for stealing public land.
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

User avatar
Louise
Posts: 3350
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:58 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Louise » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:43 pm

I don't think you can "steal" land. If you sold it fraudulently. claiming it was your property you might be in trouble.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Mr Squirrel » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:41 am

StePee wrote:In use, it would be a very useful walking route between the two schools, the park, and the meadows.


They are building a tram stop at the corner of Barlow Moor Rd and Hardy Lane, so this path would be a great route between Chorltonville and the tram stop.

Do you think the people in Chorltonville opposing it being cleared have realised this yet?
A short attention span is very... Oh look, chocolate!

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Richard_H » Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:31 am

They will if they've heard the rumour that the completion of the tramline will lead to an invasion of scallies from Wythenshawe.

freeguitarlesson
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby freeguitarlesson » Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:38 pm

Richard_H wrote:They will if they've heard the rumour that the completion of the tramline will lead to an invasion of scallies from Wythenshawe.


http://newsmanc.co.uk/2012/02/24/news-wythenshawe/

I shouldn't worry about it. This seems a reputable journal of opinion.
"Your optimism strikes me like junk mail addressed to the dead..."

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Richard_H » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:01 pm

Looks like this is back on. There's a notice on Claude Road for the more extensive route mentioned in the early days of this thread to be re-opened.

Gotta say - I think the library and swimming baths should take priority at the moment if money's tight.

EDIT: Just noticed it's on Victor Chamberlain's blog too:

http://victorchamberlain.blogspot.co.uk ... pdate.html

EDIT EDIT: Oh hang on - I've just noticed VC says they "stopping up" the path - does that mean they're not going to do it after all? Waste of a public sign if that's the case....

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:50 pm

The point here is that the paths (although 'blocked' by lack of maintenance) are Public Rights Of Way.
The Council are obliged under Law to maintain them in a fit state, which they have not done for many years.
This puts the Council in an awkward position (of being on the wrong side of the Law).
The court could instruct the Council to carry out their duty, and make the public paths fit for use.
By applying for Stopping Up Orders, the Council are seeking to avoid the above situation.
Hence the unfounded claims that they are not necessary (most people who look at a map seem to conclude that actually, they'd be very handy)
There are also claims that crime would increase as a result of the Paths being made usable again (which GMP have said is unlikely, and that they'd make sure didn't happen).
Some residents have gardens which back onto / include the land forming part of the (our) paths.

Obviously, Council funds are tight lately, but should they be allowed to make an Order, which would deny ANY POSSIBLE future use of those paths EVER ?

I suspect they're now in a hurry to do this, before (as mentioned by previous poster) the Metrolink Stations open, and people realise how handy these routes could be.

neall
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby neall » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:32 pm

Just received a letter from Councillor Bernard Priest & John Leach mp moaning about how the council is having to defend its case to close the footpath permantly. in an attempt to garner sympathy for their cause they have decided that the costs of re-opening the footpath have risen to £100000 (wasnt the previous estimate £50000? give it another year and we might get to a quarter million.) plus an extra £60k -£100k defending their court case in closing it. They finish with asking residents to support their view that the footpath is not needed and to consider its permanent closure no real inconvenience at all.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:11 am

That letter is very odd as the deadline for submitting evidence to the court was 1 May, so any responses will be too late. So sending out those letters, which won't have been cheap, was a waste of time.
You can see part of the footpath here. The council is arguing this is of 'little recreational value'.
Image

Pearl
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:21 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Pearl » Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:33 pm

According to the South Manchester reporter, the Council has lost the case and the footpath will be reopening. Don't know if there's an appeals process though.

I don't live at that end of Chorlton myself so can't really say anything about this particular path (or potential path), but I really value the few off-road footpaths that we have locally. I know there are fears of burglary and so on and I've had several burglaries myself, but I still really value our off-road footpaths.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:24 pm

Pearl wrote:According to the South Manchester reporter, the Council has lost the case and the footpath will be reopening. Don't know if there's an appeals process though.

I don't live at that end of Chorlton myself so can't really say anything about this particular path (or potential path), but I really value the few off-road footpaths that we have locally. I know there are fears of burglary and so on and I've had several burglaries myself, but I still really value our off-road footpaths.


Excellent news. Freedom of movement is more important than creating effectively "gated communities", with one road in and out. Most pavements, roads and paths interlink to create a network of movement.... the Cundiff Road roadblock (not currently in use) is a case in point.

Glad to see Victor lose this one. He's SUCH a planning NIMBY!
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

gitface
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby gitface » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:05 pm

Pearl wrote:I don't live at that end of Chorlton myself so can't really say anything about this particular path (or potential path), but I really value the few off-road footpaths that we have locally. I know there are fears of burglary and so on and I've had several burglaries myself, but I still really value our off-road footpaths.


Couldn't aagree more. I live right next to the footpath from opposite the end of Beech Road to Nell Lane / St Werburgh's Road. We've had a couple of break ins that were a direct result of the path being there (according to the Police), but I really like having it there. That part of Chorlton would be a bit of a nightmare to walk round without the footpath.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:08 pm

The Magistrates' Court endorsed the position of Anchorside Close residents entirely, so we are obviously happy. That means the footpath between us and Claude Road, alongside Chorlton Brook has been saved. However, there is no sign the council will simply accept that, despite a very harsh ruling. We suspect they will appeal not because they think they can win but because they want to be seen to be fighting all the way.

One reason they lost is that opponents of closure showed that the council had taken the cost of clearing the path into account, which would be unlawful. When the poor council officer called upon to give evidence was asked if cost had been a factor in applying to close the path he replied 'no, not at all' and he had to be reminded he was under oath twice before he admitted he was aware of local councillors campaigning. All very embarrassing. Yet even so they still bang on about cost, which shows they are clueless.

Judgement was handed down in bullet point form with a full written judgement to follow, here's a summary:
* Footpath 181 is an existing, not a new, right-of-way;
* it is incorrect to refer to this as a 're-opening' as it has never been lawfully closed;
* the council must prove that the footpath is unnecessary because superior alternative routes exist and, in addition, the footpath offers no recreational value;
* the burden of proof is on the council to show FP181 to be unnecessary, objectors need not prove necessity;
* even if the council had proven FP181 to be unnecessary the court may, entirely at its own discretion, refuse to close it (there is no discretion the other way);
* the cost of clearing obstructions must not influence the court's decision and it should not have influenced the council;
* existing obstructions exist entirely because of the council's failings;
* this amounts to a 'dereliction of duty';
* nevertheless, with the exception of the brookside section, FP181 is unnecessary;
* many consider the brookside route attractive, so it has recreational value;
* the council argued there is little demand for FP181 and that, prior to 2009, there was no local interest in the path;
* but FP181 had become hard to find, is not signposted and does not appear on maps, a further 'dereliction of duty';
* competing local consultations were inadequate;
* council consultations asked the wrong questions (i.e. they did not ask about necessity and referred to re-opening);
* Anchorside Close consultations failed to reach users further afield;
* there was a large amount of correspondence going back many years (in some cases to the 1960s) in which the council repeatedly promised action to clear FP181, but nothing happened;
* the council was unable to adequately explain how it reached the view that FP181 is unnecessary;
* FP181 is a significant shortcut for residents of Anchorside Close and others;
* the brookside route is short, but important;
* the brookside route contrasts markedly with Barlow Moor Road; and so
* the council failed to establish that the brookside section is unnecessary.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Richard_H » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:07 pm

Sorry folks, but if keeping the footpath "closed" (or whatever term people prefer to use) will deter burgulry, then I'm all for it staying the way it is.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby StePee » Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:21 pm

Excellent news.

Footpaths don't cause crime; adequate security and policing controls it, not the NIMBYistic removal of other people's rights.


Return to “Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests