Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Barlow said:

In a nutshell:

Once a public right of way has been established, usually from a minimum of 21 years continuous unrestricted use, it will take an Act of Tynwald to reverse it.

Non-use, irrespective of how long, does not relinquish the right of way. 

Public roads maintainable at public expense, like U72 on the definitive Highways Map, since 1986, are very different to private or public rights of way, by prescription or not. 

Your definition isn’t in a nutshell, and is very definitely wrong - especially in relation to U72

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes I'm kind of getting that impression of you.

So Rich bloke doesn't want the Island's great unwashed cycling and walking through a small piece of his land...fancy that.

At one time the Grand Island was the best hotel on the island .  The reason that it fell into disrepair was calculated neglect , as were a couple of other hotels in Douglas/Onchan. It's not

Posted Images

On 10/16/2020 at 4:55 PM, John Wright said:

It’s shown on Highways Division maps as an unclassified unmade road maintainable at public expense. It’s even got a number, U72 ( I think )

JW, is such a document available online (preferably without cost)? Link, if so?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

JW, is such a document available online (preferably without cost)? Link, if so?

No. Not on line. 
 

Highways Act s.3

(3)The Department shall cause to be made, and shall keep corrected up to date, a map of the Island showing the highways which are highways

(4) Every map made under subsection (3) shall be deposited at the offices of the Department and may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Public roads maintainable at public expense, like U72 on the definitive Highways Map, since 1986, are very different to private or public rights of way, by prescription or not. 

Your definition isn’t in a nutshell, and is very definitely wrong - especially in relation to U72

OK, 'maintained at public expense' is another dimension.

That aside, and not in relation to U72, can I ask what is wrong in my definition?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barlow said:

OK, 'maintained at public expense' is another dimension.

That aside, and not in relation to U72, can I ask what is wrong in my definition?

First, creation 

PRoW can be created:

1. Creation order by DoI under Highways Act. If there’s an objection then there is an inquiry provision. 

2. Creation Agreement between DOI and Land owner. Lots of the IoM Public long distance paths were created like this.

3. Express dedication by the land owner.

4. Presumed dedication, either under the Highways Act or Breast ( Common ) Law. Very few are acquired by 21 years use.
 

in relation to extinguishing a PRoW you are correct they aren’t extinguished by non use.

DoI can extinguish or divert by Order. Again there is provision for objection and an inquiry.

It does not require an Act of Tynwald.
 

s.3 of the Highways Act provides for definitive maps of roads maintainable at public expense. U72 is on that map. It’s been maintained at public expense since the 1870’s. A road maintainable at public expense is not a public right of way. It’s a different beast. There are different definitive maps for PRoW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Hopefully they'll side with Hemmings.  He's been very much a positive for the island.

 

Well yes. A travelodge style hotel (at 5 times the price) and a shopping centre that has been three quarters empty for the past 20 years have improved the island immeasurably 😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chris C said:

Well yes. A travelodge style hotel (at 5 times the price) and a shopping centre that has been three quarters empty for the past 20 years have improved the island immeasurably 😂

Tell me more about the shopping centre. Wasn’t aware he’d developed one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Wright said:

 

in relation to extinguishing a PRoW you are correct they aren’t extinguished by non use.

DoI can extinguish or divert by Order. Again there is provision for objection and an inquiry.

It does not require an Act of Tynwald.

Sorry, not require an Act per se, but rather would need to be extinguished by an Order under an Act of Tynwald.(So yes, does actually require an Act of Tynwald)

Eg  Section 24 of the Highway Act 1927, Highways Act 1986,both of which were to be repealed under The Highways (amendment) Bill 2015.

Edited by Barlow
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Hmmmmmm. Yeh, er, whatever.

Can't think of much else of note he's done for the island? Certainly nothing to justify allowing him to close whatever roads he decides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chris C said:

Tower House? I maybe wrong but wasn't he behind that?

That was Mrs Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson talc and pharmaceuticals family.

She also set up Brightlife.

No idea who owns them now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...