New twist in battle over public right of way along northern Cleethorpes coastline
THE long-running campaign for a public right of way along the northern Cleethorpes coastline has taken another dramatic twist.
Residents were celebrating in February when their application for a footpath along land known as New Clee Waterfront (previously New Clee Sidings) was approved by the Planning Inspectorate.
-
Latest setback: Local residents who claim that the footpath advertised by the council near to Fuller Street bridge does not follow the same route as the established footpath granted by the planning inspectorate. Pictured are, from left, Alan Johnson, Robert Palmer, Jeff Spencer, Al Clarke and Michael Thompson. Picture: Rick Byrne
But now they are preparing to object to the map modification order published by North East Lincolnshire Council, claiming that the route advertised is different to the one that was granted.
It is the latest setback for the residents, who have been fighting for a right of way since 1999, when a fence blocking access to the land between Fuller Street footbridge in Cleethorpes and Salvesen Road, in Grimsby, was erected.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
As reported, they had to wait until April 2011 for the planning application for three footpaths to be approved, only to see the decision reversed at a subsequent planning committee meeting less than three months later.
In February this year, the Planning Inspectorate partially upheld their appeal, ordering NELC to make an order for one of the three claimed footpaths, which were particularly popular with dog walkers.
But now campaigners say the order, which has been published by the council, is inaccurate, because the route shown does not follow the established footpath.
Robert Palmer, who has led the 13-year campaign on behalf of residents, said: "We have had 12 years of inaction, followed by a double vote by the planning committee, and now we have an inaccuracy with the grid references.
"The route that the council is proposing is not the one that has been walked on for more than 30 years."
Mr Palmer said the footpath he had applied for went through the fence near Fuller Street footbridge and followed the grassed area to Salvesen Road, whereas the one being proposed starts 72 yards further towards the coastline and clings to the sea wall.
He said he had attempted to persuade council officers to delay publication of the order until the "inaccuracies" were corrected, but to no avail.
He added: "It would seem that I am being manoeuvred into a position whereby I now have to make an objection to my own right of way application.
"I do not see how it is within the council's powers to redesign what the Planning Inspectorate has ordered."
A council spokesperson said: "The council as surveying authority for the Definitive Map have published a Definitive Map Modification Order and accompanying Order Plan for a claimed path at New Clee Sidings. This is in compliance with the Planning Inspectors report and decision to add the path route to the Definitive Map.
"Due diligence checks have been undertaken in the process of preparing the Order and Order Plan, and the published plan is a true representation of the Planning Inspector's decision.
"If any objections are received and cannot be resolved then the matter would be referred to the Secretary Of State for determination as to whether or not the order should be confirmed."
Comments
by Grimlander
Friday, September 28 2012, 12:45PM
“THEAPPLE -- Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 12:32PM
Oh yes, indeed, ''THEAPPLE', "confused" is a nice word for it (and I can't remember... was it Watney's in 'The Barrel' -- like OBFUSCATION for council communication -- and we DID sometimes take the bus all the way back [Bass isn't what it used to be!] and occasionally, in those days picked our way across the ballast from the North Wall, as it was then. The whole point is, there's been a public way for long enough to make it a Right of Way, whatever ABP & NE£incs might think in their juvenile approach to this.
Pass to you. Too far to walk at nearly 80... and I've got the bus pass now -- FOR now, till NE£incs can find a way to stop it!!!”
by THEAPPLE
Friday, September 28 2012, 12:32PM
“Grimlander is a "little" confused me thinks you can still walk over Fuller street Bridge (as the people who live there call it) and you can still walk along the sea wall to the prom and onward,BUT,what you cannot do anymore unlike when I was a child go over the bridge and turn left toward the the docks upon the sea wall,there is a metal barrier preventing your trespass”
by Grimlander
Friday, September 28 2012, 11:46AM
“NE£incs obfuscation -- politest way I can put it -- is the bane of the life of anybody with any concern for Grimland, its heritage and the well-being of its people.
Over 50 years ago, as young men, two of us, every Saturday for years, 'did' "Up Town" (well before the 'Gy Evening Telegraph' started calling it "Top Town") and then walked Victoria-st to Lock Hill Corner [not Lock Hill -- that'as somewhere else] had a pint on the way to Riby-sq then walked all the way to Fuller-st where we 'footbridged' it over the railway and walked 'beside the sea' to The Station Refresh at Cleethorpes for the best pint of Bass in the area. (1950s). We were definitely not alone in this.
THERE's evidence of long-term public use, if ever there was any, to give everyone the chance to demand the route be marked as a Public Right of Way... and NO MORE COUNCIL OBFUSCATION!!”
by sidswordfish
Thursday, September 27 2012, 8:44PM
“There are many more serious issues here for the community, than it would appear at first glance. I note that elsewhere, the council has been bemoaning a lack of public participation in their open forum's. To quote from the NELC web sight on their (SCI) 'The aim of the Statement of Community Involvement is to help ensure community ownership of the developement plan and to strengthen community involvement in planning over time. It also aims to improve overall representation and involvement across all sections of the community'. There is much more of this specious, meaningless drivel if you can be bothered.
The reality of this case illustrates just how unwelcome any initiative by members of the public in the interest of the community is. It is clear that the campaign for the foot path has been conducted scrupulously within the letter of the law, where as every trick in the book to frustrate the action has been used by council officials to delay and frustrate the action, even to the extent of initiating a second vote, to reverse an earlier one within three months, which broke the council's own rules.
The latest reply by a council official shows clearly that they are determined to continue acting as a law unto themselves, never mind what the Secretary of State has ruled.”
by barwoodnoel
Thursday, September 27 2012, 2:26PM
“Although not a resident of the area I have frequently used this footpath. I have always used the sea wall route as it gives me a nice view of the river, which is my main reason for using it. I would have no problem with that being the designated footpath. Of course ideally there should be a choice of paths.”
by THEAPPLE
Thursday, September 27 2012, 12:21PM
“the barrier has never stopped the local idiots from setting fires, riding stolen motor bikes ,on this land”