Rugby Club progress...

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
That's farkin' terrible :(. Can everyone please object to this


Edit. Just read that website. Doesn't remove existing access just stops new footpaths. Have I read correctly please? I assume this is another negative consequence of those rugger morons?
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
This mainline, which is allegedly below the intended level of the pitches, are the trains eleven or seventeen minutes late?
 

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
Noticed a lovely large flock Of Canada Geese shitting all over the new pitches today. Lovely jubbly! They may have removed any semblance of nature from this ecological desert with their destroying of the meadows, flowers, shrubs, mature trees and killing of the rabbits, but they'll never stop the geese shitting every where. I LOVE them geese now :D
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Sad isn't it, that list. Problem is that they will never stop those birds. They are situated in a BIRD reserve!!
I don't think it matters much where they are, if you can demonstrate a threat to human health from a few wrens, then very little is going to be safe..
 

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
Seen on the save Doxey marshes fb group that a lady was told by one of Lord Staffords henchmen that the field on the rugby club side was now private property.

I cant cut and paste the text, Maybe someone else can? Os maps say it's footpath 47?
 

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
Seen on the save Doxey marshes fb group that a lady was told by one of Lord Staffords henchmen that the field on the rugby club side was now private property.

I cant cut and paste the text, Maybe someone else can? Os maps say it's footpath 47?
This is the text:
Whilst walking my dogs on Doxey Marshes this morning, I was approached by a man who told me I was on private property and asked me to leave.
I told him I’d been walking on here for 20 years and was pretty certain it was a public footpath.

No, he said, it’s private property and there was no public right of way on that land. Had I not seen all the signs “everywhere “?
I’ve never seen any signs but realised on my way back that he must have been putting the signs up as he walked over to talk to me!
This man said he was Lord Stafford’s Agent so I thought I’d better check my facts.

I’d entered the land via the stile on the bridge and onto the Rugby club side of the river. As far as I can tell this is marked on the map as Footpath “Stafford 47”. In fact there is a fingerpost opposite the stile indicating a public footpath.

Has anyone else experienced this or can anyone shed any light on the footpath/not footpath question?
 

YorkshirePud

Well-Known Forumite
I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my reading of the various documents of the SCC website.

The The application by Lord S's agent was in two parts:
1. to define his areas of land and the current rights of way across them, and
2. to apply to 'bring to an end any period of recreational use “as of right”, . . .' and also prevent such land being registered as a town or village green.

So the second part allows his representative to say "this is private land" (as it always was) but now he is ensuring that you cannot continue to use it for recreational use, just because you always have done.

However, this shouldn't have any effect on the current rights of way, such as Footpath Stafford 47, which is on the Definitive Map. You should still be OK to walk along the path as long as you keep to it, and don't let your dog wander off it.

I can't see any notice on the SCC website where the route of Stafford 47 has been diverted, and I've not gone into the SCC offices to check the Definitive Map, which is paper-only.

Perhaps a phone-call to the lady at SCC who put up the notices in December would clarify the situation?
 

kyoto49

Well-Known Forumite
I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my reading of the various documents of the SCC website.

The The application by Lord S's agent was in two parts:
1. to define his areas of land and the current rights of way across them, and
2. to apply to 'bring to an end any period of recreational use “as of right”, . . .' and also prevent such land being registered as a town or village green.

So the second part allows his representative to say "this is private land" (as it always was) but now he is ensuring that you cannot continue to use it for recreational use, just because you always have done.

However, this shouldn't have any effect on the current rights of way, such as Footpath Stafford 47, which is on the Definitive Map. You should still be OK to walk along the path as long as you keep to it, and don't let your dog wander off it.

I can't see any notice on the SCC website where the route of Stafford 47 has been diverted, and I've not gone into the SCC offices to check the Definitive Map, which is paper-only.

Perhaps a phone-call to the lady at SCC who put up the notices in December would clarify the situation?

Thanks! I can sort of understand why a landowner and twat would want to stop this useless bit of marsh land being turned in to a Common, but what's his motivation in stopping people walking across this particular miniscule bit of his gigantic estate? Or is he just a horrible man?

I'm actually going to let my dog run all over it just to piss him off :)
 
Top