ElectroSoldier
Member
I wouldnt know I do know there is a sign that grants access to the grounds to access the station
https://gerryco23.wordpress.com/201...nd-grassendale-parks-river-access-restricted/
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Gatwick Airport Station Access via Private Property
- Thread starter Jona26
- Start date
- Status
I wouldnt know I do know there is a sign that grants access to the grounds to access the station
https://gerryco23.wordpress.com/201...nd-grassendale-parks-river-access-restricted/
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 276
No it's not.
Nor is it anything to do with the covenant. It's just a question of ownership.
The land is private, so the owners can restrict parking as they wish. What they can't do is obstruct any Rights of Way and the fact there are roads is a pretty big clue that there are rights of way. So anyone can come and go as they please.
But a right of way is a right to go back and forth as much as you like. It is not a right to leave your car, only to use it to go back and forth.
Like I said, the situation seems to be no different to that on literally thousands of private roads in England. I have no idea how many stations are served by private roads, but my guess is in the hundreds.
ElectroSoldier
Member
So the sign means nothing, and the residents cant collectively restrict access to anyone in any way?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Er, no. A metalled road is not necessarily a right of way. There are plenty of them that are not - many such roads on private estates like this one.
Wychwood93
Member
For rights of way have a look at:
http://www.rowmaps.com/
As I understand it, I may well stand corrected, there are numerous instances of limited 'rights of way' to stations. My local station, Christchurch, has from the up side exit a path to the nearby Clarendon Road where a sign says it is 'not a public right of way' - I would take this as meaning something along the lines of 'use it at your own risk, no liability for said use' - anyone on here who understands the detail a touch more?
http://www.rowmaps.com/
As I understand it, I may well stand corrected, there are numerous instances of limited 'rights of way' to stations. My local station, Christchurch, has from the up side exit a path to the nearby Clarendon Road where a sign says it is 'not a public right of way' - I would take this as meaning something along the lines of 'use it at your own risk, no liability for said use' - anyone on here who understands the detail a touch more?
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 276
I think that is probably a fair summary as regards people just waking or driving. I think my answer was clear that they can restrict activities other than "passing and re-passing". The people have to be 'going somewhere' so it's not a licence to loiter and cul-de-sacs have a better chance of avoiding creation of a right of way than roads that go somewhere.
It's possible (as I said above) that the short road right next to the station has only a "permissive right", but I doubt it.
Without knowing the exact location of those signs and the history of the road next to the station, I can't be sure, but my guess is that they are legally ineffective just as the claim that people "enter at their own risk" is probably untrue and ineffective.
Last edited:
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 276
I never said all were. Most private roads are highways and therefore have a right of way over them. Not all, but most.
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 276
The details are endless and complicated. It's certainly true that a recently built path can be protected by signs of this nature as long as the signs are obvious to anyone using the path. It doesn't actually mean "use at your own risk", but means "use with my permission". The key is that permission is needed (and given), there is no RIGHT of way. Most owners also close the path once a year just to make the situation clear and, for a fee, they can even register with the local authority their intent not to create a right of way.
The problem is older paths because they quite likely became rights of way some time in history and so remain so regardless of any signs or closure. Many landowners put up these signs without them being factual. Many local authorities have a very limited appetite to challenge such situations as long as access is not actually being restricted.
The question of whether an unadopted road is legally a highway or not was tested in the courts in Fortune v Wiltshire CC (2010). In that particular case the residents of a cul-de-sac in Chippenham tried (unsuccessfully) to argue that their road was not a vehicular public highway although no-one disputed that rights of way existed on foot*. The judgement contains a list of factors that are relevant in law and which ones were key to the decision in that particular case.
* there are three separate classes of highway: footpath, bridlepath (cycles and horse riders), carriageway (vehicles)
Last edited:
fireftrm
Member
Private Roads are highways within the Highways Act BUT this does not directly present a right of way, which is a legal term andmay, or may not be the case and certainly not as definitive as you suggest
Llanigraham
On Moderation
But that "Right" might only be of a Permissive nature.
A wonderful example of that is just over the Mersey. The Promenade at New Brighton is a dual carriage way A road, but is a Permissive Path, and is one of the few places that used to be closed every year to hold a full blown tarmac Stage Rally without needing an Act of Parliament to remove any speed limits.
Brighton has another example.
Agreed. See above.
I am referring to the Barsby reference manual on the legal framework for private roads, which is regarded to be a fairly comprehensive statement of the various strands of law.
- highway is ironically not defined in the Highways Act 1980
- as far as the law is concerned, highway has the technical meaning that it is subject to a public right of way
- for legal purposes there are 3 main sorts of private road
1 highways for one or more classes of traffic
2 private roads to which the public have access and so the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and some other legislation apply, but are not highways. Access means that use by the public is tolerated even though there is no actual right. Barriers or notices stating there is no right are relevant but not conclusive (they may not be enforced)
3 private roads which are not subject to public access and are not highways
Road and street have no special meaning in legislation
I should imagine that there are many people who have walked over parts of Gatwick doe at least 20 years to reach their place of employment or delivery location who would be able to support a claim for those routes to be a public right of way.
Not if there is a notice to the effect that there is no intention to dedicate the way as a public highway.
“The Highways Act provides that where a notice of this sort has been put up, it is sufficient evidence, in the absence of proof of a contrary intention, to negative the intention of dedicating a public highway” (Barsby)
My local airport too. No check at the entrance door, apart from the odd day when they have been subject to protestors. In this case the airport manager is entitled to do this under statutory airport legislation, and can be backed up by the police under criminal law. The same applies if anyone overcomes the airport perimeter fence. 1982 Aviation Security Act I think. It overrides all concepts of right of way etc.
And I think that's what the Gatwick notice refers to. They don't normally do so, but have the right to do so if they wish.
- Status