Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Redhead's Landing Again
A private slipway?
Following my visit to Redhead's Landing yesterday, the experience has preyed on my mind, and I find myself asking a number of questions. Please view the photographs to help you follow my thinking.
There is a lot of flotsam and debris there and it is all well above the high water mark, on the upper part of the landing. It surely would put most people off from using it or visiting this location. How did it get there? Who moved it there from the shoreline? Why deposit it just behind the gates? Why not just push it back into the river and allow it to be carried out to sea?
You will also notice that in one of the photographs you can see the booms placed near the water's edge by Tyne Slipway "to prevent more rubbish accumulating." You will also notice that there is no rubbish, flotsam, or debris in the area of the slipway directly in front of their boundary fence. This makes it so very easy to draw the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that someone is deliberately obstructing part of Redhead's Landing to discourage public access, whilst maintaining very good access for themselves.
If we remember the statement from the Council Officer regarding the provision of proof that the area has been used publicly and continuously for a period of twenty years, you would then, like me, question why someone is, apparently, doing there level best to disprove this assumption. Pile the rubbish high on the slipway, plainly make the place a bigger mess than it ought to be, and then periodically lock the gates - suddenly two and two no longer add up to four!
I am only theorising and questioning what I see at Redhead's Landing. Another question that comes to mind is this - if I were to find a piece of unregistered land, that for all intents and purposes was not usefully used by any person, and I then started to make use of that land myself, after a period of, let's say, twenty years, would that land now be deemed to be mine in the eyes of the law? (Isn't this what we call squatter's rights?) Under the provisions of the 2002 Land Registration Act the squatter can apply for the title to the land after a period of ten years of occupancy, and it will be granted if the registered land owner fails to oppose the application.
I think it's about time that someone in authority tried their level best to get to the bottom of this conundrum and firmly re-establish Redhead's Landing as a "Public Landing" as clearly indicated on the sign affixed to the wall.
_________________________________________________________________
Following my visit to Redhead's Landing yesterday, the experience has preyed on my mind, and I find myself asking a number of questions. Please view the photographs to help you follow my thinking.
There is a lot of flotsam and debris there and it is all well above the high water mark, on the upper part of the landing. It surely would put most people off from using it or visiting this location. How did it get there? Who moved it there from the shoreline? Why deposit it just behind the gates? Why not just push it back into the river and allow it to be carried out to sea?
You will also notice that in one of the photographs you can see the booms placed near the water's edge by Tyne Slipway "to prevent more rubbish accumulating." You will also notice that there is no rubbish, flotsam, or debris in the area of the slipway directly in front of their boundary fence. This makes it so very easy to draw the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that someone is deliberately obstructing part of Redhead's Landing to discourage public access, whilst maintaining very good access for themselves.
If we remember the statement from the Council Officer regarding the provision of proof that the area has been used publicly and continuously for a period of twenty years, you would then, like me, question why someone is, apparently, doing there level best to disprove this assumption. Pile the rubbish high on the slipway, plainly make the place a bigger mess than it ought to be, and then periodically lock the gates - suddenly two and two no longer add up to four!
I am only theorising and questioning what I see at Redhead's Landing. Another question that comes to mind is this - if I were to find a piece of unregistered land, that for all intents and purposes was not usefully used by any person, and I then started to make use of that land myself, after a period of, let's say, twenty years, would that land now be deemed to be mine in the eyes of the law? (Isn't this what we call squatter's rights?) Under the provisions of the 2002 Land Registration Act the squatter can apply for the title to the land after a period of ten years of occupancy, and it will be granted if the registered land owner fails to oppose the application.
I think it's about time that someone in authority tried their level best to get to the bottom of this conundrum and firmly re-establish Redhead's Landing as a "Public Landing" as clearly indicated on the sign affixed to the wall.
About Me
Curly Born in 1956
Sanddancer
Sunderland fan
Male
Retailer
Former Borough Councillor
View my Profile
Contact
Email Curly
south-shields AT
blueyonder DOT co DOT uk
Got a story?
Got a tip off?
Got some scandal?
Let me know!
07941386870
Search
Search this site
Comments
How do I make a comment on this blog?
Links
Curly's Corner Shop website
Curly's Photoshop
My Message Board
Shields photo gallery
RTG Message Board
Sunderland AFC Blog
Site Feed
Blogroll Me!
Past
December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007