The chances of the Allams working with the council is on anything, is just shy of zero, they'll continue to go out of their way to antagonise them over absolutely anything they can.
It's not just the Allams, you just posted that Adam Pearson couldn't get anywhere with the council over this issue either. As he couldn't get anywhere with the 'Super Casino' application for the KC.. Which I would ask where is it now ?
In answer to your question DBT. The fact is that although some posters in the believe that this is only about the bridge, that is only a part of the issue. PLT says that my post has been refuted, well that may be the case, but the truth is that the bridge is only a portion of the issue. A public right of way can end at a point. Making the bridge a public right of way would not mean that the gate is opened. The local authority has to maintain the pathway. This could extend right the way around the Stadium. This is from a court case earlier this year that involved a company I am linked to. 22 Dealing with the highway first, there is, curiously, no definition in the highways’ legislation as to what a highway is. That is a point that is remarked upon by Hickinbottom J in Kotegaonkar v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anr [2012] EWHC 1976 (Admin). 23 It is, therefore, necessary to go back to the common law as to what amounts to a highway. The classic statement is that of Wills J in Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 QB 191 at 197, namely: “... a right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and repass without let or hindrance.” 24 At paragraph 16 of the judgment of Hickinbottom J, some additional characteristics are set out from Halsbury’s Laws of England and are effectively approved by the learned judge: ‘(i) The passage must be as of right, not mere permission. (ii) The right must be a right to pass at will. (iii) Although the right may be for a limited purpose - such rights of passage may be for vehicles (i.e. a road), or for pedestrians and animals (i.e. a bridleway), or for pedestrians only (i.e. a footpath) – it must be a right owned by the whole of the public, not merely a portion of the public. (iv) The right must be over a defined route: the common law did not recognise a right to stray or wander over land. (v) The right must be permanent: a highway cannot be extinguished at common law except by way of complete physical destruction, hence the maxim, “Once a highway, always a highway”. Short of physical destruction, extinguishment relies upon statutory provisions.’ 25 The first distinction of some little importance is the difference between the terminology of a “public highway” and a “highway”.. A public highway is one that is maintainable at public expense, i.e., the highway authority is responsible for making sure that the road surface is kept to a reasonable standard and that people can use the public right of way. That is a class of highway which was created under a statutory scheme to ensure that highways were maintained. Highways themselves as a concept predated that statutory scheme. It is the word “highway” which appears within the Schedule to the 2017 Act and it is that with which I am concerned. 26 It is quite clear from the matters that are set out in the judgment of Hickinbottom J that whether something is a highway or not is a question of fact. It is, therefore, necessary to look at the surrounding circumstances of this piece of land to ascertain whether there is a right of way over it. Later the judge states: " Whilst most public highways are probably, to all intents and purposes, owned by the highway authority, if one thinks about footpaths, the land is often owned by somebody else, often the person who has the adjoining land over which the right of way travels. So, whether the property is owned by a particular individual, is not of any great relevance to whether there is a right of way"
This is from last night but I haven't seen anyone else post it. Exactly what many of us on here said it would be. The Allams' particular brand of lying is just so easy to read now. Looks like you were the one 'blindly believing one side' weren't you @Phil West-Upper. Fancy that eh?
They simply didn't happen, the super casino in Manchester was dropped and of the 18 large casino licenses issued, only three ever got built, Hull City Council weren't responsible for the casino not going ahead.
Cllr Alan Clark @CllrAlanClark Hull CC will be doing a full consultation with any interested party to make the walkway a public right of way. You can email myself [email protected] if you have used it and why in the last 15+ years.
I don't see that this has any relevance at all, it's already a council owned walkway and they're already responsible for its upkeep.
So now you support the SMC decision to gate the pathway. That's a turnaround for sure PLT! If HCC will not pay to maintain the path beyond your gate why should the SMC not lock the gate, it seems like you would.
"SMC has not acted unlawfully or in breach of either the terms of its lease or planning consent by erecting the lockable gate." Well that's that then.
The council should obviously press ahead with making it a Right of Way, but it's probably pointless, chances are the Allams will be gone well before it's actually achieved and the gate will have been opened up again anyway.
So this is only about the gate at the end of the bridge and the pathway on the bridge is it? If there is no public right of way beyond the gate, there is no reason for the gate to be opened. The public right of way will have to extend beyond the gate into the area of the stadium. The relevance of my post is in the answering of the question raised by Dennisboothtash. But both you and PLT seem to lose sight of the fact that the public right of way has to go beyond the gate into the stadium. When the stadium was built only one new public right of way was adopted, the path from West Gate to the Stadium, the whole paved area around the stadium should have been made a public right of way at the same time, but..
Some years back, i was involved with a group of local residents over here against , a local farmer/landowner who blocked and lock a right of way, we and the local council fought and won the case in the end and the farmer was forced by law to reopen the right of way, my point here is it took about 3/4 years to sort it out so don't expect anything to happen over night folks.
I fully appreciate that, and as OLM says hopefully the Allams will be long gone by then anyhow. Nevertheless it is still worth getting it done, though whoever takes over next, one would assume any lease would change to make that a condition of the lease that the access remains open at all time.
There's a fifty year lease on the stadium, unless the SMC shuts down, the terms can't be changed until at least 2052.
I would assume that the lease could be amended by agreement of both parties Obviously that won’t happen at the moment, but could do with new owners
The government changed its mind on super casinos, their demise was nothing to do with HCC or any other local authority.
TOM is spot on as far as I can see He’s saying that just because the path outside your house is a right of way doesn’t mean people can walk up your house path and into your house When thinking about the stadium where the gate is is effectively the entrance to your garden, the stadium is your house
