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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby freeguitarlesson » Thu Aug 15, 2013 1:25 pm

Cheers.
"Your optimism strikes me like junk mail addressed to the dead..."

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:24 pm

belperfury wrote:i disagree with you on this, think you're misinterpreting my comments and could argue the toss on your points.

however, i think for the sake of everyone else on this forum, i'll have to give this a miss for now...


Image
One must always be wary of the march of the right-wing. I advocate public flogging/confiscation of assets/rehoming of their young

toneill
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:05 am

Re: Footpath 181

Postby toneill » Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:19 pm

I believe some people are being fooled by Stephen Newton, my understanding is he was instrumental in the partition to open path 181 and has openly admitted to wanting it open so he has a short cut to the pubs in Chorlton. He is also devious twice he has sent the gardeners that tend Anchor-side Close to cut down a fence belonging to Anchor(no connection to Anchor-Side Close), telling them it was his fence and that is where the path was going, because that is where he wants it to go.obviously attempting to pre-empt any discussion as to which route it should take. he is also selfish as the route he want's would put elderly and vulnerable
people at risk.If this path is opened it will increase crime ask any policeman and he will tell you the first thing a thief looks for is an escape route and path 181 would be idle for this purpose and would not
go through any part of Anchor-side Close so not putting any of his neighbour's at risk, as I believe not all of the residents are in favour of opening the path. This path has not been use for about 60 years
so there can not be many living in Chorlton can remember it or have used it.Its is also illogical to say it should be policed.With the present cut backs to the police it could not possible for it to be policed 24/7 or even in the hours of darkness.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:30 am

toneill wrote:I believe some people are being fooled by Stephen Newton, my understanding is he was instrumental in the partition to open path 181...

It's always been clear that I played a key role in opposing the closure of Footpath 181 and also that I am proud of that. I am one of three directors of Anchorside Close RTM Company, which manages Anchorside Close. The company has members, not shareholders, and the members are all leaseholders on the estate. I am not able to act on my own, riding roughshod over my neighbours, who reappointed me and my fellow directors last month. The footpath was discussed at that meeting and we were praised for our work.

As you would expect, the footpath issue has been discussed many times. Between September 2011 and the July court hearing, we (not I) consulted with leaseholders and other residents (i.e. those who are renting) eight times. The judge praised the neutrality of those consultations. All revealed overwhelming support for saving FP181 and many residents supplied statements in support of saving the footpath to the court. Not a single local resident gave evidence in court to support closing the footpath, nor did any local resident supply a written statement to the court calling for closure.

It is true that the council is consulting as to whether it should promote a diversion of the footpath. This is the council's fourth consultation since 2009 and if it does decide to promote a diversion there will be a fifth consultation. The council is suggesting that, given that three properties on South Drive have unlawfully extended their gardens over the footpath (or 'invested' in them as the consultation letter says), Meade Manor or Rainbow Close might give up some of their lawfully acquired gardens. Fortunately, the council cannot confiscate land from Meade Manor or Rainbow Close (a compulsory purchase would almost certainly fail) so these diversions can only go ahead with their permission. These diversions also require building a bridge across Chorlton Brook at Anchorside Close. We have decided not to give permission for the bridge or any other diversion through our estate, so all the proposed diversions are dead and the footpath will need to be cleared along its existing route.

toneill
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:05 am

Re: Footpath 181

Postby toneill » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:32 pm

if you say it should take the original route this would take it past the front doors of 11& 9 Anchorside close have you informed them of this. you also failed to answer my accusation of your deviousness in attempting to cut down fencing belonging to Anchor Trust .This would bring the path out on to private land so this wont happen as 99-9 % of tenents in Arden court and Oakhouse drive are against the path and were not informed that they could speak against it in court. I see you are also against the bridge of course you are as this would bring the path through Anchorside close and passed you front door, and you don't want that you want the path as long as your not inconvenience by it .You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, and you can pat yourself on the back as much as you want but you do not fool me .And could you explain to me why only half the path can be opened.,

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:25 pm

You claim that Oakhouse Drive residents were unaware of this, but I visited Arden Court a little while ago and spoke to a large number of residents. In addition, the council's attempt to close the footpath was advertised in the Manchester Evening News, on lampposts and so on. Local councillors also distributed a great many leaflets and met with Oakhouse Drive residents and there have been articles in the Manchester Evening News. The court hearing concluded 3 July and the deadline for appeals passed in August. And of course 11 and 9 Anchorside Close are fully informed, both leaseholders are founder members of the RTM company.

The fence to which you refer is on land within the Anchorside Close estate and there is no dispute with Anchor Trust on this. There is a dispute over the route, we believe the evidence shows the path runs under that fence, the council argues it runs under the brick boundary wall from the fence to which you refer to a wooden fence. If the council wins that argument it will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for residents of Oakhouse Drive as that wall will need to be dismantled in it's entirety. The wooden fence will go too. Hedges planted against this wall, along with other plants on trellises along it, will be destroyed.

Here is the wall the council argues needs to come down. You are looking towards Claude Road. The wooden fence on the right will go, along with the wall that begins behind the hedge as far as you can see here. That hedge, and the hedge at the other end, will most likely collapse and need to be removed and Oakhouse Drive residents will lose the trellises against the wall. The area will become open plan.
FP181 wall.jpg
FP181 wall.jpg (72.89 KiB) Viewed 3071 times

Here is a map showing that most of Oakhouse Drive is adopted, so anybody is free to walk up and down it. The blue car in the picture above is on unadopted highway, the grass verge is adopted.
fp181adopted.jpg
fp181adopted.jpg (235.66 KiB) Viewed 3071 times


The wooden fence in the photo is at the end of the adopted section of Oakhouse Drive, so if the council wins the argument over the route, pedestrians from Claude Road will walk the line of the existing boundary wall until they get to where the wooden fence is now. They will then be free to walk up Oakhouse Drive or (less likely) to follow a diversion through Anchorside Close (as it is also adopted), joining Oakhouse Drive further up.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby ash pole » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:35 pm

Allow me

Image

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:53 pm

toneill wrote:I believe some people are being fooled by Stephen Newton, my understanding is he was instrumental in the partition to open path 181 and has openly admitted to wanting it open so he has a short cut to the pubs in Chorlton. He is also devious twice he has sent the gardeners that tend Anchor-side Close to cut down a fence belonging to Anchor(no connection to Anchor-Side Close), telling them it was his fence and that is where the path was going, because that is where he wants it to go.obviously attempting to pre-empt any discussion as to which route it should take. he is also selfish as the route he want's would put elderly and vulnerable
people at risk.If this path is opened it will increase crime ask any policeman and he will tell you the first thing a thief looks for is an escape route and path 181 would be idle for this purpose and would not
go through any part of Anchor-side Close so not putting any of his neighbour's at risk, as I believe not all of the residents are in favour of opening the path. This path has not been use for about 60 years
so there can not be many living in Chorlton can remember it or have used it.Its is also illogical to say it should be policed.With the present cut backs to the police it could not possible for it to be policed 24/7 or even in the hours of darkness.


Oooh look.. a newbie come to slag Stephen off for supporting the opening of the footpath that the council had a statutory duty to maintain.

Place your bets... LibDem councillor, police officer or Anchorside NIMBY?
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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:39 pm

stephennewton wrote: And of course 11 and 9 Anchorside Close are fully informed, both leaseholders are founder members of the RTM company.


i know the bloke who lives at number 11 through work and he thought fp181 should have been closed. he certainly doesn't fancy the idea of running through his garden as the current route is.

he also felt that many other residents were opposed to it, and that no one from the rtm company had ever given him any information about their plans or asked his viewpoint.

i don't believe a word you say - at best you're very misleading but more likely you're full of shit...

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:50 pm

I obviously know the same guy. He moved in early 2012 and in March that year responded to a consultation email with 'My girlfriend and I have just moved into the area & would love a path / bridge to go near the brook and towards beach road.'

Later he did change his mind, which is fine. But it's simply not true that he's not been consulted.

toneill
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:05 am

Re: Footpath 181

Postby toneill » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:32 pm

Yes you came to Arden Court and I was at that meeting and at no time was a court case mentioned or that we could attend it, also you now dam well the fence I refer to is not the one on the photo
But behind the greenhouse and is not on Anchorside Close ground you keep trying that one on and you know it belongs to Anchor trust, up to now you have tried bulling people but I believe Anchor Trust are now involved and i don;t think you can bully them

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby belperfury » Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:50 am

stephennewton wrote:And of course 11 and 9 Anchorside Close are fully informed, both leaseholders are founder members of the RTM company.


stephennewton wrote:
toneill wrote:All revealed overwhelming support for saving FP181 and many residents supplied statements in support of saving the footpath to the court.


so, for clarity, the guy living at number 11 isn't a founder member of the rtm company and he does not support saving the path.

you're clearly a man of integrity who would never let the truth get in the way of a bit of spin to meet your own personal agenda.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby annie » Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:56 am

belperfury wrote:
stephennewton wrote:And of course 11 and 9 Anchorside Close are fully informed, both leaseholders are founder members of the RTM company.


stephennewton wrote:
toneill wrote:All revealed overwhelming support for saving FP181 and many residents supplied statements in support of saving the footpath to the court.


so, for clarity, the guy living at number 11 isn't a founder member of the rtm company and he does not support saving the path.

you're clearly a man of integrity who would never let the truth get in the way of a bit of spin to meet your own personal agenda.


For "personal agenda" read "legal entitlement"

This is one of the most poisonous, stupid threads on Chorlton Web and that's saying something.

I'm really glad I don't live on Anchorside, as it sounds like there's a LOT of wan*ers living there.

It's a done deal. It will be opened, at council expense. Serves them right for being dicks in the first place.
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 » Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:55 am

belperfury: for clarity the guy at no. 11 rents his home, his landlord is a founder member of the RTM company. He is one of three residents who have let us know they would prefer the footpath closed, a small minority.

Annie: I'm confident the wankers live elsewhere. The guys at 11 are good neighbours, it's okay to disagree on the odd issue. Toenail appears connected to someone in the sheltered housing. As I've mentioned, I did meet with them and loads turned up. Most wanted the footpath closed, but not all. On Anchorside Close it's the other way around.

Nevertheless, local people wanting the footpath closed is not lawful grounds for closeure so, in law, it doesn't matter. And the court has ruled out the closure so that really is that.

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

Re: Footpath 181

Postby stephennewton » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:45 pm

toneill wrote:Yes you came to Arden Court and I was at that meeting and at no time was a court case mentioned or that we could attend it, also you now dam well the fence I refer to is not the one on the photo
But behind the greenhouse and is not on Anchorside Close ground you keep trying that one on and you know it belongs to Anchor trust, up to now you have tried bulling people but I believe Anchor Trust are now involved and i don;t think you can bully them

Sorry, I did think I'd made it clear the fence we plan to remove -- and that Toneill initially referred to -- is on Anchorside Close grounds behind the greenhouse, just visible on the left of the photo.

The council argues the boundary wall and wooden fence in the foreground is on the line of the path, so maybe this will need to come down instead.

At the time I met you at Arden Court, the date for the court hearing had not yet been set. But it was well advertised. In any case, it was not for those who opposed closing the footpath to organise the other side.


Return to “Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests