London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · June 19th 14, 11:57 PM posted to cam.transport,uk.transport.london

In article ,
(Phil W Lee) wrote:

considered Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:55:25
-0500 the perfect time to write:

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
03:23:29 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014, remarked:
Plying for hire requires a licence from the local authority in the
area to be plied in. This is going to be a huge problem with the
new Science Park station whose forecourt will be in South Cambs
that has next to no licensed hackneys. My plan, for a joint
licensing authority covering both councils was making no progress
when other events intervened.

Is there any possibility of a byelaw declaring the station to be in
'joint' territory? It might help swing that if, as I suspect, it's
landlocked by the City (via Milton Rd).

No. I tried to get the new square that will be part of the station
development made public highway but got no support. The developers
and Notwork Rail wouldn't budge.

It shouldn't matter who owns it, just a waiver on the District
Boundary condition for that site.

If a developer won't dedicate land as public highway and the highway
authority won't use compulsory powers to override them, what can be
done? I'm surprised you don't t realise that, Roland.

The Highway Authority can create a public highway across land it
doesn't own.

True. Most minor highways are not on land owned by the highway authority but
the owners have no effective rights because of the highway status. If the
highway is stopped up the ownership rights revert.

I know a highway authority /can/ a highway but the highway authority
concerned /won't/ do so. Now what?

The fact that the land under most roads has actually been purchased by
the Highway Authority is largely for simplicity, as it allows
installation of other services under the roadway.
But it is very rarely the case for public footpaths or bridleways,
which are almost all owned by private landowners.

--
Colin Rosenstiel