|
Much has been made at this Inquiry, by the objectors to the Order, of the role of the Gateacre Society in this matter. There has been a suggestion that the Gateacre, Woolton and Wavertree Societies have somehow managed to coerce the Council into taking decisions that they would not otherwise have taken, and the residents of Woolton and Gateacre into making untrue statements in support of the Right of Way Claim. We make no apology for the fact that we made the Claim, and persuaded the Council to do something that it should have done - and would have done years ago, had it had a full time Rights of Way Officer. However, we reiterate that we did not instigate the opposition to the wall. We did not control the way in which people filled in or submitted User Evidence Forms or letters of support for the Order. It was the City Council who insisted that people should obtain the forms from me and return them to me. I strongly resent the aspersions cast on my own personal integrity. The idea that all the Proofs of Evidence were written by one person is preposterous. While some of those residents who completed User Evidence Forms may have liaised with one another, this was beyond my control and without my knowledge, and should not be used to discredit the Gateacre Society's case. The supposedly incriminating 'MC' numbering of the User Evidence Forms is the result of them having been sorted into alphabetical order of street name, and sequentially numbered by me before submission to the Council. This numbering system, along with the consistent formatting and dating of the Proofs of Evidence, was done with the intention of assisting the Council in processing our Claim and assisting the Inspector at this Inquiry.
Four months ago, on 13th April, the Inquiry was adjourned to allow the Byron Court Management Company to engage the services of a barrister, and to try and find a copy of the Head Lease which would confirm the Company's status as a 'legal owner' of the land over which the disputed path runs. That has meant a four month delay in the decision process, and four months additional inconvenience for literally hundreds of people who until March 2016 benefited from the existence of the pedestrian route. The Company has now had to admit that the Head Lease was never registered, and - in spite of the various legal precedents quoted by Mr Nicholas Jackson, only one of which ('Applegarth') would appear to relate to Rights of Way matters - there is no proof that the Company had the power to turn people away.
|
|