GateGate and SignGate...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Old cleggys changed his tune a bit

Cllr Clark said details of the consultation would be released within the next few days.

However, he anticipated it would feature an online questionnaire as well as information being provided in newsletters and leaftlets.

Although the route across the so-called railway triangle was created as part of the original stadium development project, it was never formally designated as a public right of way.

A report to today's committee, the council's chief legal officer Ian Anderson said: "SMC has not acted unlawfully or in breach of either the terms of its lease or planning consent by erecting the lockable gate.
"However, its presence goes against the intention of all parties, including SMC, when the stadium was constructed and opened in that the community stadium should be freely accessible at all times by those approaching from any direction.

"Clearly, detailed consultation is required before a satisfactory, binding solution can be identified and this may ultimately lead to establishment of a public right of way, which could lead to implications for the council in terms of either statutory or negotiated compensation."
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Old cleggys changed his tune a bit

Cllr Clark said details of the consultation would be released within the next few days.

However, he anticipated it would feature an online questionnaire as well as information being provided in newsletters and leaftlets.

Although the route across the so-called railway triangle was created as part of the original stadium development project, it was never formally designated as a public right of way.

A report to today's committee, the council's chief legal officer Ian Anderson said: "SMC has not acted unlawfully or in breach of either the terms of its lease or planning consent by erecting the lockable gate.
"However, its presence goes against the intention of all parties, including SMC, when the stadium was constructed and opened in that the community stadium should be freely accessible at all times by those approaching from any direction.

"Clearly, detailed consultation is required before a satisfactory, binding solution can be identified and this may ultimately lead to establishment of a public right of way, which could lead to implications for the council in terms of either statutory or negotiated compensation."
Click to expand...
So the Council might have to pay the SMC if they designate it as a right of way?!
 
The Omega Man said:
The council would be responsible for its maintenance.
Click to expand...
No I was referring to the Council officer saying “...may ultimately lead to establishment of a public right of way, which could lead to implications for the council in terms of either statutory or negotiated compensation."
 
dennisboothstash said:
No I was referring to the Council officer saying “...may ultimately lead to establishment of a public right of way, which could lead to implications for the council in terms of either statutory or negotiated compensation."
Click to expand...
I suppose the prow would have to be right through the kcom grounds. So that would be for the council to maintain? So the Allams would want it backdated?
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
I suppose the prow would have to be right through the kcom grounds. So that would be for the council to maintain? So the Allams would want it backdated?
Click to expand...
Can’t be backdated if it wasn’t a right before. My assumption is that the Allams would want a reduction in rent or compensation because some of the land they’re paying for wouldnt only be theirs, so they’d be paying for something they don’t need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImperialTiger
dennisboothstash said:
Can’t be backdated if it wasn’t a right before. My assumption is that the Allams would want a reduction in rent or compensation because some of the land they’re paying for wouldnt only be theirs, so they’d be paying for something they don’t need.
Click to expand...

It could be a right of way but the council decide to close the gate on match days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash
Chazz Rheinhold said:
I suppose the prow would have to be right through the kcom grounds. So that would be for the council to maintain? So the Allams would want it backdated?
Click to expand...

Every shop that the council lease in the city centre has a public right of way running up to it, the right of way doesn't continue into the shop, in principle this is no different to any road leading to a leased premises.

The council own the path and are already responsible for its maintenance, though for years the SMC and council have argued over who should clean it. The SMC say the council own it so should clear all the litter, the council say the litter is almost all generated by people attending games, so the SMC should clean up their customers mess (just as takeaways in the city centre must clear the crap their customers drop on the roads outside their premises).
 
Quite funny this morning, RH are broadcasting live from the gate and every five minutes someone rocks up and climbs over it.

Just by chance, some bloke from out of town rocked up while they were there, he was supposed to be working at the KCOM this morning, but he'd arrived not knowing anything about the gate and didn't fancy climbing over it. <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImperialTiger and Kempton
originallambrettaman said:
Every shop that the council lease in the city centre has a public right of way running up to it, the right of way doesn't continue into the shop, in principle this is no different to any road leading to a leased premises.

The council own the path and are already responsible for its maintenance, though for years the SMC and council have argued over who should clean it. The SMC say the council own it so should clear all the litter, the council say the litter is almost all generated by people attending games, so the SMC should clean up their customers mess (just as takeaways in the city centre must clear the crap their customers drop on the roads outside their premises).
Click to expand...
Bit of a flawed argument from the council over the rubbish. One game a week either football or rugby, sometimes none at all and the path is in use for two or three hours at the most ? But they want it open 24/7 with no responsibility to clean up the mess ? Takeways in the city are a different argument altogether, they are open seven days a week, nearly all day and night. Is there even a litter bin on the walk way ?
 
Phil West-Upper. said:
Bit of a flawed argument from the council over the rubbish. One game a week either football or rugby, sometimes none at all and the path is in use for two or three hours at the most ? But they want it open 24/7 with no responsibility to clean up the mess ? Takeways in the city are a different argument altogether, they are open seven days a week, nearly all day and night. Is there even a litter bin on the walk way ?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the traffic on that walkway is people attending the KCOM, indeed it only exists as a consequence of the KC being built and I doubt there are any bins, it's only a few hundred yards long.
 
PLT said:
Extremely selective, given that the post you highlight was refuted in several posts following it.
Click to expand...
Not selective at all. You chose to blindly believe one side, and I don't. But the latest revelations, if true, throw a different light on the matter. The maintenance of the foot path has been a bone of contention for years, mainly the clearing up of the rubbish. I know people who have put complaints in and I know the blame/responsibility for clearing it up has been dodged by both parties.
 
Phil West-Upper. said:
Not selective at all. You chose to blindly believe one side, and I don't. But the latest revelations, if true, throw a different light on the matter. The maintenance of the foot path has been a bone of contention for years, mainly the clearing up of the rubbish. I know people who have put complaints in and I know the blame/responsibility for clearing it up has been dodged by both parties.
Click to expand...

<laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: originallambrettaman
Phil West-Upper. said:
So why the fuss if it is gated off ? No bins but piles of rubbish, some fly tipped too.
Click to expand...

AP got fed up of arguing with the council over it and took responsibility for clearing the litter, far more sensible, it's hardly a big job, the SMC already has people doing the rest of the site (of which this walkway is just an absolutely tiny part).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back