The objection to the extension of the site boundary has been summarily fired back in the face of the protestors. Mr John McCormack writes to say that the Council owns the ground where the gazebos sit. That there is no public right of way. That the public have no right to be on the property. That the Council is entitled to extend the boundaries and is not confined to the existing boundaries. Health and Safety is claimed to be the reason to extend the boundaries - due to the action of the protestors. It is claimed that the Council has given the required public notice in relation to the Peace Park. The latter, for one, doesnt add up. The Peace Park was partially open until the attached was taken. It was then summarily closed off the next day without the required public notice. Health and safety was ignored when the shuttering machine set to work within feet of a young woman in a canoe. If H&S was a real concern, the site should have been closed off at that time. After all, according to the letter, The Council can reassess the need for extended boundaries on an ongoing basis. The question of public right of way is interesting. The public have been walking that land for centuries. At no time has anybody blocked them. It is a de facto right of way to the amenities of the river. Access under the bridge is encouraged by virtue of the chicaned walkway (from the opposite side) to the arch entrance point. Is there legislation that gives the Council, in contrast to a private individual, the right to extend the boundary of a building site? If one were building a house beside a space such as that on Greens Bridge, can one extend the boundary of the site for Health & Safety reasons - Just like that as Tommy Cooper used say? Does that mean that theres one law for the Council and another for the private citizen in respect of construction? If so, why did the Council post notices? If they have an entitlement, theres no need to post notice for the statutory duration? Ownership requires the holding of title for a property. Even if the Council has has the property in its hands for greater than the 13 years required re squatter rights, the title has to have been conveyed. Hasnt it? Mr McCormack makes no reply to the fact that the notice to extend the boundary was posted at such a distance from the temporary railing that it could not be read. Youd wonder whether the Council lawyers have sanctioned this letter of response from John McCormack? And if they have, whether they are any good as advisers. Lets see what other lawyers think. Though the way that the CAS is being executed hints at a dug in mindset at work. There is an apology in the letter for the inconvenience caused. The apology should be for the inappropriate activation of the CAS. Not for precluding Travellers and others from the amenity of the river. A sop.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:24:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015