Land Between Ernest Rd and Avenue

Anyone else seen the "No Public Right of Way" sign that has appeared by the bus stop on the Avenue 

«1

Comments

  • Well I can remember using it as a shortcut for quite a few years and wonder if a right of way could be established by usage..  I cannot recall any time when it was locked off.

    Interestingly from what I recall there is/or was even a red dog waste disposal bin installed about halfway along the area which suggests in use by dog walkers.

  • Somewhere on the forum I think it was mentioned that no one knew who actually owned the land. To my knowledge its never been restricted and even a boat was stored there upto a little while ago.
    Possibly someone trying to "landgrab" ?
  • The land is owned by wivenhoe town council 
  • It belongs to WTC and has done for a long time.

    WTC could know that, by now, a deemed right of way would have arisen even if it hasn't been recorded -yet.

    Puzzled...
  • Marika said:
    It belongs to WTC and has done for a long time.

    WTC could know that, by now, a deemed right of way would have arisen even if it hasn't been recorded -yet.

    Puzzled...

    Thanks for clearing it up

    Safe from housing development then (we hope)

  • The land is owned by wivenhoe town council 
    Do you know why the notice has gone up after all these years ?
  • edited November 8
    Interesting.

    This patch of land has been subject to various claims of ownership over the years, none of them came to anything. Wivenhoe Town Council has maintained the land for decades, this does not give them ownership rights (as far as I know).

    The denial of public access is the first stage of the land being sold off.
  • edited November 8
    Please provide evidence, or retract this allegation.
    You're aware of libel laws, right?
    Thank you.
  • Does not someone need to be named for libel to apply?
  • @adrian Wivenhoe Town Council was named in the same post.

    Do you have anything else to add?
  • edited November 8
    Jason said:
    LiamC said:
    Call me cynical, but, money has probably changed hands.
    Please provide evidence, or retract this allegation.

    You're aware of libel laws, right?

    Thank you.

    Sincere apologies Jason. I posted that without thinking.

    I've edited out the offending remark (and, of course, I fully retract the allegation).

    The land in question isn't owned by the town council (if I recall rightly). They've simply maintained it, along with many other patches of unclaimed land in the village.



  • @LiamC - appreciated :)
  • Jason said:
    @adrian Wivenhoe Town Council was named in the same post.

    Do you have anything else to add?
    Touchy.
    I merely thought the original comment suitably vague, but the point is rather moot now the post has been ammended.

  • @adrian. I'm not the touchy, feely sort.

    I am the Publisher of this forum however. I can't afford to fight any potential libel battles on behalf of anyone else.

    Ta.
  • I've just been informed the land hasn't been earmarked for development, surreptitiously.

    The signs are there to stop people parking on the land (or storing their boats, as was the case).

    I will put my cynicism back in its box. We have some good people on the Council, the slur I made earlier was unwarranted.
  • Just for clarity LiamC, WTC do own it, and maintain it.
  • andrea said:
    Just for clarity LiamC, WTC do own it, and maintain it.
    Was this land declared to the Health Authority when they were looking for a site for the new medical centre? 
  • I am puzzled as to why a sign saying "No public right of way" stops people from parking boats.  If it were a public right of way would this mean boats could be stored there?
  • kit you asked 'Was this land declared to the Health Authority when they were looking for a site for the new medical centre?'
      
    Yes, but it's too small.
  • edited November 8
    (edited to add: in response to @LiamC)
    That's a downright silly explanation; bollards would have achieved that.

    S31(3) of the Highways Act 1980 under which this order was made makes interesting reading.
    It's used when the owner of the land wishes to negative a Prow that has accrued by usage, and so deny usage as a highway.
    Highway usage amounts to no more than the right to "pass and repass".

    Boats.....? Not very convincing
  • andrea said:
    Just for clarity LiamC, WTC do own it, and maintain it.
    Thanks for the clarification Andrea.

    The current confusion regarding ownership stems from 1992. Apparently, ownership of the land was contested. Some of the old locals (my indubitable sources) maintain the land remains unclaimed. It appears this is not the case.
  • Marika said:
    (edited to add: in response to @LiamC)
    That's a downright silly explanation; bollards would have achieved that.

    S31(3) of the Highways Act 1980 under which this order was made makes interesting reading.
    It's used when the owner of the land wishes to negative a Prow that has accrued by usage, and so deny usage as a highway.
    Highway usage amounts to no more than the right to "pass and repass".

    Boats.....? Not very convincing
     Bollards, indeed.

    The removal of a Public Right of Way roused my suspicion the land was being earmarked for development.


  • It was because someone tried to cheekily claim ownership that I and others on the WTC took the legal steps to obtain ownership of it on the basis that we had been maintaining it for at least 20 years and certainly from the time I joined the Council in 1983. WTC has been the legal owner of it since the mid-1990s. It has a covenant on the land which prevents it being used for building.    
  • No public right of way ?...
    there are meant wivenhovians been walking through there for 60, 70 or more years. By the way it’s called Smiths corner.
  • That's right, no official public right of way. But custom and practice .... of course.
    It is called Smith's Corner after the first resident who lived in the house on the upstreet side whose nickname was One-armed Smith.
  • So what is this land for? We cannot build  on it, We can't park on it. Now we can't even walk on it, If it belongs to the council why not have a garden that we can sit in or a playground for children or a fitness centre for adults, I just find it very strange that after years of using the space as a short cut suddenly an ugly notice is put up, If the idea was to stop people parking why not a more discreet notice stating that. Incidentally if the council are maintaining it We are paying for it, What are we getting from it!
  • As they say, "Watch this Space"
  • From what I gather, removing the public right of way prevents parking on the land (which had been happening). As Marika said earlier, bollards would have done the job and, I might add,  without causing a fuss.

    I suspect bollards weren't used because the Council requires access for grass cutting.
  • This from the minutes of the WTC Estates Open Spaces Committee meeting held on 9 October:

    "7. Smith’s Corner right of way.
    Cllr. Newton informed the committee that the house to the South of Smiths Corner on The Avenue side was recently sold and as with the previous owners they are parking on the grass of Smiths Corner, adjacent to their house. Cllr. Newton suggest that WTC should put up signs (compliant with S31 of the Highways Act 1980), stating that there is no right of way over the land."
  • There has been right of way through from high street to Ernest road for decades and probably centuries.
    All seems mystifying to me.
    As Greenback says what are the residents getting out of it.
    many have built back to back houses in both high street and Ernest road.
    As the council claimed it, I guess for nothing, why not sell it to developers, for example £250k and use the money towards
    something Wivenhoe needs.
    for example a modern large community centre.
Sign In or Register to comment.