Monday, August 01, 2005
Redhead's Landing
Redhead's Landing - the arguement continues
I have received an email from Neil Carter, a solicitor in the Council's Legal Services Department, which once again attempts to brush off the issue of public access to Redhead's Landing. In reply I have raised some pertinent points. Here is the text of my reply, which I hope will provoke some discussion amongst elected members, who, if they are not too carefull, will allow officers to take decisions for them, instead of advising and offering recommendations. At the end of the day it ought to be our elected Councillors taking decisions!
Neil,
thank you for the guidance and advice contained within your email, however,
I am concerned and worried by one or two key points.
a). Who has made the decision that " this is not now something which the
Council as Local Planning Authority could legitimately enforce", officers or
elected members? How is it not legitimate to enforce planning conditions
now, yet it was legitimate only ten years ago? How would a decision such as
this undermine the value of previous resolutions passed by the Town
Development Committee, and what sort of precedent does it provide for the
future?
The condition of the landing is no different now than it was in 1995, the
last time the Council took enforcement action, against the same people who
continuously lock the pedestrian access gate on health and safety grounds.
b). Who would be held liable for any accidents that occur at the Landing, if
it were available for public access, the Council or the land owner? Who
should be held responsible (financially) for any clean up, and the
installing of life saving equipment, the Council or the land owner? ( I note
that other slippery surface areas remained open for public access for the
Tall Ships event, i.e. the rocks surrounding the south pier at Littlehaven
Beach, and the Groyne Pier, and Trow Rocks, all areas where the public could
easily injure themselves and consider approaching a solicitor for guidance.)
c.) When the original planning consent, and conditions attached to the
erection of the gates, was given, why was so much importance attached to the
"maintenance of a gate for pedestrian access that should remain unlocked at
all times"? We must assume that there were very good reasons for coming to
this decision.
d.) " In light of the information provided by Tyne Slipway, Council Officers
carried out an inspection of the site on 25 July and have formed the view
that it is wholly unsuitable in its present condition for public access.
This is due to the large amount of waste material which has been deposited
on the landing by fly tippers and also due to the proliferation of algae and
the lack of life saving equipment on site."
How did our officers come to the conclusion that fly tippers had been
responsible for the depositing of the waste material, when the gates are
almost permanently locked from the inside?
On the few occasions when I have managed to gain access to the landing, I
have always found that the lowest part, close to the river, is always clear
of rubbish, thus allowing Tyne Slipway good use of the waters edge, however
the vast majority of the waste material is deposited high up the landing,
beyond the point where it could have been deposited by the tides, and I
suggest that it has been deliberately carried there as an effective barrier
to discourage any use of the landing by anyone other than Tyne Slipway
Engineering Ltd.
e.) In hypothetical terms, if Tyne Slipway Engineering Ltd. were to prove
that they had exclusively used Redheads Landing over the course of the last
ten years or so, the landowners remain unknown and have not objected, would
this company be able to claim title to the land under the conditions of the
2002 Land Registration Act?
As you can see, although the Council is not the landowner, it is not an
adopted highway, or recognised as a Public Right of Way, it is not so easy
for the Council as Planning Authority to so easily wash their hands of the
affair.
In the longer term, unless I take the route of making an official
application to have Redhead's Landing added to the Definitive Map of Public
Rights of Way, it would be best, in my view, to continue enforcing the
conditions of the planning conditions and to seek out the owners of the land
with a view to acquiring it for public use.
Were it within the Council's ownership, a dwarf wall could be erected to
separate it from Tyne Slipway's land, and to provide a barrier at the waters
edge, suitable life saving equipment could be provided, along with seating,
and the landing could be maintained to a safe standard meeting the desires
and aspirations expressed through the decisions and planning consents of
TWDC and our own Town Development Committee.
I trust these points will be carefully considered as members decide what the
future holds for Redheads Landing.
_________________________________________________________________
I have received an email from Neil Carter, a solicitor in the Council's Legal Services Department, which once again attempts to brush off the issue of public access to Redhead's Landing. In reply I have raised some pertinent points. Here is the text of my reply, which I hope will provoke some discussion amongst elected members, who, if they are not too carefull, will allow officers to take decisions for them, instead of advising and offering recommendations. At the end of the day it ought to be our elected Councillors taking decisions!
Neil,
thank you for the guidance and advice contained within your email, however,
I am concerned and worried by one or two key points.
a). Who has made the decision that " this is not now something which the
Council as Local Planning Authority could legitimately enforce", officers or
elected members? How is it not legitimate to enforce planning conditions
now, yet it was legitimate only ten years ago? How would a decision such as
this undermine the value of previous resolutions passed by the Town
Development Committee, and what sort of precedent does it provide for the
future?
The condition of the landing is no different now than it was in 1995, the
last time the Council took enforcement action, against the same people who
continuously lock the pedestrian access gate on health and safety grounds.
b). Who would be held liable for any accidents that occur at the Landing, if
it were available for public access, the Council or the land owner? Who
should be held responsible (financially) for any clean up, and the
installing of life saving equipment, the Council or the land owner? ( I note
that other slippery surface areas remained open for public access for the
Tall Ships event, i.e. the rocks surrounding the south pier at Littlehaven
Beach, and the Groyne Pier, and Trow Rocks, all areas where the public could
easily injure themselves and consider approaching a solicitor for guidance.)
c.) When the original planning consent, and conditions attached to the
erection of the gates, was given, why was so much importance attached to the
"maintenance of a gate for pedestrian access that should remain unlocked at
all times"? We must assume that there were very good reasons for coming to
this decision.
d.) " In light of the information provided by Tyne Slipway, Council Officers
carried out an inspection of the site on 25 July and have formed the view
that it is wholly unsuitable in its present condition for public access.
This is due to the large amount of waste material which has been deposited
on the landing by fly tippers and also due to the proliferation of algae and
the lack of life saving equipment on site."
How did our officers come to the conclusion that fly tippers had been
responsible for the depositing of the waste material, when the gates are
almost permanently locked from the inside?
On the few occasions when I have managed to gain access to the landing, I
have always found that the lowest part, close to the river, is always clear
of rubbish, thus allowing Tyne Slipway good use of the waters edge, however
the vast majority of the waste material is deposited high up the landing,
beyond the point where it could have been deposited by the tides, and I
suggest that it has been deliberately carried there as an effective barrier
to discourage any use of the landing by anyone other than Tyne Slipway
Engineering Ltd.
e.) In hypothetical terms, if Tyne Slipway Engineering Ltd. were to prove
that they had exclusively used Redheads Landing over the course of the last
ten years or so, the landowners remain unknown and have not objected, would
this company be able to claim title to the land under the conditions of the
2002 Land Registration Act?
As you can see, although the Council is not the landowner, it is not an
adopted highway, or recognised as a Public Right of Way, it is not so easy
for the Council as Planning Authority to so easily wash their hands of the
affair.
In the longer term, unless I take the route of making an official
application to have Redhead's Landing added to the Definitive Map of Public
Rights of Way, it would be best, in my view, to continue enforcing the
conditions of the planning conditions and to seek out the owners of the land
with a view to acquiring it for public use.
Were it within the Council's ownership, a dwarf wall could be erected to
separate it from Tyne Slipway's land, and to provide a barrier at the waters
edge, suitable life saving equipment could be provided, along with seating,
and the landing could be maintained to a safe standard meeting the desires
and aspirations expressed through the decisions and planning consents of
TWDC and our own Town Development Committee.
I trust these points will be carefully considered as members decide what the
future holds for Redheads Landing.
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