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.
ash pole
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:05 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby ash pole » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:45 am

What I don't get is how this path fell into disuse in the first place if it was such a great shortcut. It all seems like a storm in a teacup and massive waste of taxpayers money. Surely half a dozen people could clear the damn thing in a few hours if they were really so inclined.

lister
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:56 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby lister » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:20 am

I doubt it, Mr Chamberlain's map shows obstructions on the path:

- chain linked locked gates to both entrances
- 6ft wooden fences
- brick, ivy clad walls
- planted trees with associated mounds of topsoil

sounds like more than a few hours work to me...

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:30 am

ash pole wrote:What I don't get is how this path fell into disuse in the first place if it was such a great shortcut. It all seems like a storm in a teacup and massive waste of taxpayers money. Surely half a dozen people could clear the damn thing in a few hours if they were really so inclined.


1. It fell into disuse due to the council illegally letting the path be built on/overgrown/abused.
2. As a right of way footpath the council has an obligation to keep it clear. If they didn't do so, it's incumbent on THEM to put it right.
3. With the newer houses on Anchorside Close, I'd hazard a guess that now there's a need for the path. Would you like to walk all the way round Anchorside, Cundiff and Barlow Moor Roads just to get to the bus station of a morning??

Using the words "massive waste of taxpayers money" is really, really lame.
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

ash pole
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:05 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby ash pole » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:52 am

Oh boo-hoo.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:02 am

ash pole wrote:Oh boo-hoo.


Hey... it's the law. If the council are breaking the law, that's their lookout. I don't live remotely near there but some friends of mine do.

Anything that puts a FibDem councillor's nose out of joint is good in my opinion.
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby Pearl » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:14 am

There's a short summary of the case on the Ramblers website:

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/what-we-do/n ... osure.aspx

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby belperfury » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:02 am

seems to me like the advantages of reopening are not sufficient to justify the negatives and cost.

there is already a footpath connecting south drive to hurstville road and walking around claude road/beech road is hardly a huge distance. a handful of people will get to shave 5 mins of a walk while others will have to suffer an increased risk of crime.

i don't buy the recreational value from a tiny bit of pathway when residents of both sides of the footpath can get such immediate access into miles of tracks around chorlton water park, river mersey and the ees already.

i appreciate that legally the council appear to be in the wrong, but the common sense decision is to leave it as is.

lister
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:56 pm

Re: Footpath 181

Postby lister » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:03 pm

The benefits are obvious if you look at the map, a massive shortcut to the ees?

It seems much like the opponents would prefer segregation from the 'poorer' parts of chorlton . Whilst we're at it, let's close the stumps from Hurstville road, don't want those ruffians from hardy lane now do we?

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:18 pm

lister wrote:The benefits are obvious if you look at the map, a massive shortcut to the ees?

It seems much like the opponents would prefer segregation from the 'poorer' parts of chorlton . Whilst we're at it, let's close the stumps from Hurstville road, don't want those ruffians from hardy lane now do we?


This is a major factor, IMHO, and if the Chorltonville nobs could have closed that cut-through from Hardy Lane before they sure as damn would have.

Freedom of movement does not attract crime. It enables crime to be carried out more easily, in certain cases, but that is ABSOLUTELY no reason to restrict proper, legal access.

Also, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence that reopening it would lead to more crime. It's a typical politician/NIMBY argument against proper liberties.

This can be effected by the council paying for the heavy works (fence re-siting, wall removal) and then a contingent of the Ramblers making the path look pretty.
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby belperfury » Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:41 pm

lister wrote:The benefits are obvious if you look at the map, a massive shortcut to the ees?


a massive short cut from where? hardy lane goes straight to the ees via hardy farm if you live on that side of chorlton.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby belperfury » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:27 pm

annie wrote:
lister wrote:Freedom of movement does not attract crime. It enables crime to be carried out more easily, in certain cases, but that is ABSOLUTELY no reason to restrict proper, legal access.

Also, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence that reopening it would lead to more crime. It's a typical politician/NIMBY argument against proper liberties.


while there's not much evidence that proves opening paths increases crime, there is plenty to suggest closing them off (alleygating) reduces it both in real terms and perceived safety.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:26 pm

Now that the court ruling is in, at the risk of sounding arrogant, this debate is redundant. It's important all sides accept the judgement.

Annie is right that the law requires the council to positively assert the public's right of way. It has considerable powers to do that, including forcing owners of land through which the path runs to remove obstructions at their, not the council's expense.

If the council fails to convince us that it is doing all it can to clear the footpath, we can ask the court to set a deadline for completion of works. Obviously, we don't want to that, but given John Leech's post-judgement statement to the South Manchester Reporter, we expect we'll have to.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:37 pm

Sorry, I should have added that people are quite right to bring in the class element. It is far from uncommon for middle class areas to seek to cut off working class areas and to demonise those places. So we hear that if people from the Cundiff Road area are allowed to walk by Chorltonville crime will rocket.

Similarly we have a comment that it is a path to nowhere as nobody from Chorltonville would want to visit Cundiff Road.

The footpath at Hurtsville Road was discussed at length in court. This is not maintainable at public expense. So the council cannot guarantee it will remain open.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:02 pm

belperfury wrote:
annie wrote:
lister wrote:Freedom of movement does not attract crime. It enables crime to be carried out more easily, in certain cases, but that is ABSOLUTELY no reason to restrict proper, legal access.

Also, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence that reopening it would lead to more crime. It's a typical politician/NIMBY argument against proper liberties.


while there's not much evidence that proves opening paths increases crime, there is plenty to suggest closing them off (alleygating) reduces it both in real terms and perceived safety.



Gating off alleys or ginnels (which are NOT rights of way and offer only minimal shortcuts) are a different thing entirely to the closing off of a useful public right of way.
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:10 pm

I'm not too worried about alleys, but we need to watch 'perceived safety'. Lots of people feel safer in a car than on a train, but trains are far safer. So perceptions should be corrected when wrong, rather than indulged.

In particular, we shouldn't indulge perceptions to the extent that we inconvenience others.


Return to “Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests