|
Byron Court Management Company have been unable to provide any evidence that they have a legally-binding interest in the land. Three of their witnesses explicitly stated, when cross-examined, that they were not the owners of the car parking area through which the path passes. One of them confirmed that the Company had not communicated with Christopher George about the use, and alleged abuse, of the path prior to 2016. Just as in the case of challenges to passers-by issued by the staff of Acrefield Bank from 1979 onwards, those alleged to have been issued by residents of Byron Court between 2001 and 2016 are thus of no significance in the context of either the Highways Act or Common Law.
We have examined the Byron Court Management Company's legal submissions with regard to the various dates on which, they say, the status of our claimed Right of Way was "brought into question". We have struggled to understand the relevance of the legal cases quoted: 'Grantchester' and 'Wild'. The only significant date, in our opinion, is March 2016 when the wall was built. Before that time, we were unaware of any threat to the route's continued existence. Prior to 2004, Liverpool did not have a Definitive Map, so there was no procedure for registering a Public Right of Way. In 1999/2000, when Byron Court was being planned, there was no mention of any antipathy towards pedestrian movement. In 1994, when we included this path in our list of 21 proposed Rights of Way in the Woolton/Gateacre area, this was in response to a direct appeal from the Merseyside Environmental Trust, whose 'Find a Footpath' project was a fact-finding mission carried out on behalf of the City Council. In 1984, the Council's Planning Committee was in no doubt about the suitability of the path as a through route. Only in 1979 was a challenge made publicly - by the Matron of Acrefield Bank - but it would seem that her views were not supported by the land owner, Liverpool City Council.
The reason why a "legal Public Right of Way" was not created in the 1980s or 1990s was that there was no mechanism for doing this. After 2000, the problem was lack of resources within the Council's Highways Department. We believe that the evidence we have presented is sufficient for the Order to be confirmed, by virtue both of the Highways Act and Common Law.
|
|