No it wasn’t, it was the Lib Dem’s under Simone Butterworth that put together the contract and signed it. And it isn’t about having the know how, the contract is air tight, we have had QCs look at it over the air I arena farce.

The statements put out by whom? The SMC manage the grounds and as we found at great cost have an airtight contract, the councils only recourse is through the planning process. The footpath was built for the Stadium and as such is not a public right of way.

The one they put out yesterday saying the gate would be open for a few hours. I think the ambitions of the Allams now, having already alienated FC and City's fans is to cast the net wider and get after fairgoers

Seriously though, from a planning consent perspective does the rationale for putting a gate in which (fairtime apart) is shut apart from on the few hours each week when there are substantial numbers of people in attendance, as a way of mitigating terrorism risk stack up? I simply don't see it, unless I've missed something.

Slither and squirm, just what we expect from the great and good of HCC, Mr Webster, you epitomise everything that’s wrong with local government, idiots elected and setting low targets and constantly missing them. I would imagine you voted for the unnecessary new Ice Rink and the sub capacity (but inflated cost) venue, not to mention the countless delays on Castle Street development and idiocy of bus lanes. City of Culture we may be, but the only culture at the power levels of the Council is a self-serving culture of the old boys network.

Who mentioned the air arena? I'm talking primarily about this, blocking a right of way that is land that is public, one can openly walk around the stadia at any time, so blocking a way that has being used for years cannot be stopped up temporary or otherwise without an order. Uou should know this as it's common knowledge.
Which Queen's council did they seek? I refer to gumption because the council have always being very reticent to act. Haven't they at this moment allowed SMC to dictate matters on land that doesn't even belong to them and has no backing by organisations to suggest leaving the way open has any bearing on safety of the stadia with respect to terrorism?
and yet the council still allowed the footbridge/right of way to be unlawfully blocked. As i said, no gumption, no clue what they're doing.

Whichever council lot gave the asset away should have being investigated.

That sums you up, “I imagine” you don’t even know whose responsibility Castle Street is, I’ve always found that people who are quick to call people idiot when they don’t even know them, usually wear that medal themselves with honour. Try reading something and get yourself some understanding of grown up things, as people who think you a fool have that confirmed when you open your mouth.

The contract was looked at again over the debacle in the airco arena, the Bridge was part of the stadium development and falls under the SMC, a contract negotiated as I said by the Lib Dem’s under Simone Butterworth, it is not a public right of way, its land purchased by the council as part of the development and the SMC manage it, this was tested in court with regards to the contract and we lost!

Who gives a we won't need access until february.

I never said poop.

On the planning front, they did originally put in for planning but the recommendation was to refuse, so they withdrew it and built it anyway saying they didn’t need permission, we received a letter from them saying they will vigorously defend their right to build it through the courts if we take planning enforcement.

I know that HCC have failed spectacularly for years, under both Labour and Liberal Democrat control, even the regeneration of the city has come at a cost, your pathetic attempt to belittle me by saying "grown up things" is as laughable as it is childish.

But hey, I never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level, and proceed beat you with experience.

rlInglis sabre rattling...rl

Instead of sound bites and statements, why don't the Council [sizeDO[/size something...

Presumed dedication.

Most public rights of way have come into existence by way of presumed dedication. Presumed dedication refers to a long-established principle that long use by the public without challenge can constitute evidence that the landowner intended to dedicate the used route as a public right of way.

Presumed dedication can take place under either common law or statute law, which provide slightly different frameworks. Anyone who has evidence that a right of way has come into existence by statute or common law can apply for a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to have the right of way recorded on the definitive map.

The onus is on the person claiming a right of way to show that by the landowner’s conduct, or the absence of any action by the landowner to prevent the public from using the claimed route, it can be inferred that the landowner intended to dedicate the path to the public

As HCC is the landowner it should be easy to resolve.