|
4.9 Disappointingly, Sergeant Stott went on to say: "From a Crime Reduction perspective I would fully support the reinstatement of a section of wall and fencing at the rear of this development. … In my opinion the gap or access point that previously existed is a potential crime generator that need not be there, and would compromise not only the security of this development, but that of the adjacent Glenacres estate. I see no reason to retain the gap as it would only allow access to the development and I believe has in the past existed purely as an informal link between two areas."
4.10 Interestingly, Sergeant Stott's report concluded with the comment that "Crime attached to this development is virtually non-existent". This is confirmed by the statistics of crime/anti-social behaviour with which we have been supplied as part of the same FOI Act response (see Annex 20). There were NO reports at all of Anti-social Behaviour in Byron Court L25 6LY between 17 December 2011 and 16 October 2016, and only ONE incident of Crime between 17 October 2011 and 16 October 2016. That incident was "violence against the person" on 11 October 2016 - i.e. seven months after the wall was built.
4.11 On 28 November 2016 (see Annex 21) Mike Chitty asked for a meeting with Sergeant Stott, to be attended by Councillor Malcolm Kelly, who was a city councillor when Byron Court was built (1999-2001) and would be able to confirm that there was no existing wall or fence at that time. However, on 12 December Sergeant Stott declined this request, stating (see Annex 22) that "until such time as the legal status of the way has been determined, I regret that I cannot see any point in a meeting with you and Councillor Kelly".
4.12 Turning now to the Letters of Objection received by the City Council in January 2017, we note that not a single named resident of Byron Court has objected to the Modification Order. Nor has the owner of Byron Court, Hayne Securities Ltd. The only objections submitted - apart from three residents of Glenacres concerned about dog fouling, parking and other issues not directly relevant to the Right of Way Claim, and a resident of Woolton Park Close who mistakenly thought that the Order would 'legalise' the wall - were from Matthew Reynolds of Sutton Kersh on behalf of the Byron Court (Liverpool) Management Company Ltd. The key points made by him were as follows:
4.12 (i) The City Council's Director of Social Services, as landowner of Acrefield Bank, objected to the Woolton Park Close planning application in 1984, and implicitly gave notice "of an intention not to dedicate the route in question" as a Right of Way.
4.12 (ii) The 'Private Road' sign at the entrance to Glenacres was aimed at "restricting access along the road to all public road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and vehicles".
|
|