On 31 Oct 2008 at 7:41pm Cliffe Mitchelmore wrote:
Had a lovely meandering stroll with our toddler the other day, just following the little chap around, letting him decide where we would go. (It's a bit like The Dice Man but with Pampers).
He's an adventurous boy, so his tiny legs led us up to the Cuilfail estate... and I'm not sure we should have been there. The signs do not make you feel welcome - I'd have to say I felt vaguely dirty.
Of course, there are private roads all over Britain... but in the interests of curiosity, does anyone actually have the jurisdiction to stop you walking along such a street?
Obviously I mean the residents of Cuilfail no ill will and I won't be walking up there any time in the near future. Honest Guv!
Just thought I'd ask.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 8:13pm Thomas Paine wrote:
(1) If land is a Highway then you have the right to be there. The County Council can tell you if it is a Highway or a Public Right of Way (footpaths, bridleways and byways). Actually all are highways under the Highways Act 1980 as our "restricted byways" as defined by the CROW Act 2000.
(2) If it is not a highway, and you do not have the owner's permission you might be trespassing. But note that Trespass is not an offense except in a very few highly specific types of land, for example it is illegal to trespass on Railway Land (Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845). The landowner would have to sue you for damages. However you do not have the right to go on someone else's land as far as I am aware.
Note the distinctions between rights and wether it is and offense - the two are separate entities. For example we don't have the right to cycle on a public footpath, but it is not illegal to do so: ie there is no offense in the law, the landowner/occupier would have to sue you. It is illegal to ride a bike on a footway (pavement part of a road) so you don't have the right to do so.
However I should say that in my view it is antisocial to ride a bicycle on a public footpath, and believe the "spirit of the law" is to preclude it, so I would be right behind the landowner on that one! As for the Culfail Estate I am waiting for house prices to get back to 1930's levels so I can live there, then I'll chase you away Orff My Land.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 8:56pm Roly Mo wrote:
I think the residents would be more bothered about you calling it an estate.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 11:13pm Cliffe M wrote:
Obviously I meant estate as in Balmoral, Sandringham etc etc.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 11:19pm mooney wrote:
"Dice Man With Pampers"
Let's not let that get lost in the thread.. GENIUS!
On 1 Nov 2008 at 10:43am Cliffe Mitchelmore wrote:
So TP to continue the debate, these 'No Entry - Private Road' signs can be ignored legally and are just an informal warning to stay away?
Thanks Mooney. If you've got a nipper you should try Dice Man With Pampers. Essentially you throw off all the shackles of normal parenting (a wonderfully liberating state of mind) and just let your anklebiters go where there tiny goldfish minds take them.
On the same day as our invasion of Cuilfail, we also found our way up into the kitchen of the Riverside cafe, through to Stead and Simpsons' shoe storeroom, and also managed to brazenly rearrange half the shelves in Superdrug. Normally I'd be worried but because I'd expunged myself of all responsibility I was laughing like a drain. Because it wasn't my fault. It was HIS! (Points accusingly at one year old).
On 1 Nov 2008 at 10:45am Cliffe M wrote:
their - sorry.
On 1 Nov 2008 at 12:25pm Thomas Paine wrote:
CF: I'd recommend the road up to the golf course though - fantastic eye-level views of the peregrine falcons and ravens on the up-currents this summer.
To respond though - If the road is private then it clearly up to you wether to ignore the signs. The owners of the road and you can sort it out between yourselves, unless you or they are doing something illegal of course. Like I said, the first thing to do is to find out if it is a public road in case the signs are misleading. My guess though is that it is private land as the signs have been there a long time and no one has had them removed... but for the very keen, always worth checking the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, and the map of roads maintainable at the public's expense too.
On 2 Nov 2008 at 12:50am Lopster wrote:
how else is one supposed to access the PUBLIC Martyr's memorial - oh yes via the golf course and through the broken fence silly me - walked my dogs regularly up the memorial - dare someone challenge me on the way to a memorial - as long as you carry your soiled pampers home and don't leave them on a 300yd long drive you can't go wrong
On 2 Nov 2008 at 1:17am Old Git wrote:
I think I'll spare people the pleasure of a contribution about the distinction between a Private Road and a Private Street
On 2 Nov 2008 at 1:22am Lopster wrote:
ooh - Old Git - I would LOOVE to know the difference - sounds SOOO anal - could really bore/impress with that one - spill the beans...
On 2 Nov 2008 at 12:17pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
There's a "legal" route to the memorial if you go up Chapel Hill and take the track on the left immediately after the last house. It's a public footpath and runs up the side of Cuilfail. It brings you out on the golf course, turn left and the memorial's about 50 yards along.
I lok forward to a learned discourse on the rights of users of Byways Open to All Traffic.....
On 2 Nov 2008 at 5:51pm Lopster wrote:
no access to memorial from golf course - iron railings
On 2 Nov 2008 at 11:29pm Thomas Paine wrote:
Legally, a Byway Open to All Traffic is open to all traffic.
Caecilius in via sedet, as they say.