Thursday, December 09, 2010
STILL WAITING...
Still nothing in the public domain (via the North Lincolnshire Council planning system) on either of the major store schemes planned for Brigg. Lidl wants planning permission for a new store off Atherton Way; Tesco wants an Extra store on its current site and the one Lidl now occupies. Three weeks have now elapsed since we expected the plans to go public and Brigg Town Council earlier this week had to scrap a specially arranged meeting to discuss them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
......I ponder whether the delay is caused by the sudden realisation that much of Market Lane has been built on by the existing Tesco.
Market Lane was officially adopted as a public vehicular thoroughfare in the late C19th and seemingly never been de-classified as a public road.
So could Tesco be legally challenged for causing an highway obstruction? And could the Council be challenged for failing to appreciate the legal standing of Market Lane?
The lane, which stretched from Market Place to the now Barnard Ave, fell in to disrepair in the late 50's after the demolition of houses and a farm along the road.
But dereliction cannot necessarily be used as an excuse for forgetting Market Lane being an officially registed route in Brigg - the footprint still exists.
Now we have NLC being confused with the only recognisable portion of Market Lane trying to decide whether the lane is private and therefore be permissibly gated.
Any solicitor worth his salt should be able to perceive from ancient maps the extent of Market Lane and then ask the valid question when was it officially removed as a public thoroughfare.
Similarly, a public footpath does not become private just because trees fall across the route.
It I were Tesco, I would want a water-tight case before spending millions on a new investment.
Could someone be sweating in NLC?
....technical question: Market Lane was adopted by Brigg Urban District Council circa 1880's; Spring Way is an unadopted road owned by NLC......which one, according to the definition, takes priority?
Or am I being too pedantic again, but its legality must properly defined???
Post a Comment