A reader alerted this website of the following public notice . It is regarding a space behind the Taylor’d Lighting on St Margarets Road that Richmond Council intends to give up ownership and maintenance of the land as a road. Currently the space is used for parking, people turning their cars or kids playing.
bq.. Highways Act 1980 - Section 116 and Schedule 12 - Public Highway at the rear of 141-143 St Margaret’s Road, Twickenham - Removal of part of the public highway
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames being the Highway Authority for the highway hereinafter mentioned intend to apply to the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Richmond, Surrey, on Thursday the 18 day of January 2007 at the hour of 10:00 o’clock for an Order under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 authorising that part of the public highway to the rear of 141-143 St Margarets Road, Twickenham, Middlesex, to be stopped up on the grounds that it is unnecessary. The area of land which will be affected by the proposed order is shown on the plan, which may be inspected at the Civic Centre, 44 York Street, Twickenham, Middlesex, during normal office hours.
Comments
After a quick look for similar situations on the web I understand that this kind of change normally presages the adjacent landowner taking over ownership and control of the land, with the backing of the council who save money in no longer having to maintain the land. I guess it's often then built on.
I admit to an interest, I use the area occasionally for parking, turning the car, and in the past for teaching the kids to cycle and skate. Any building there might overlook my garden. And it's public land why should we lose it.
Can anyone advise how to put in an objection to the Magistrates' Court?
Bob Hampson on 2006-12-07 10:46:00 +0000This is just plain silly - anyone claiming that parking spaces in St Margarets are unnecessary has very little grasp of reality.
Local businesses suffer enormously from parking restrictions, there are rarely any bays available on either Crown Road or St Margarets Road.
What do our local councillors think and what study was done by the Highways Department to come to the conclusion that these spaces were not needed?
karen on 2006-12-07 11:48:00 +0000Hmm, I live in one of the flats that has it's access on this "road." I wonder who is getting ownership of it and if I have any implicit / de-facto right of way?
I wonder if my Landlord knows - I should probably phone her.
Also if there are rights of way, will obstruction of them by building be prohibited?
The Odd Bins parking lot is also accessible via this road.
Adrian on 2006-12-07 12:08:35 +0000Ah!
I have just spoken to my landlord - namely Taylor'd Lighting, and this is in fact their application.
So some very important points:
It only applies to the last bit behind 141 and 143 St Margarets Rd, i.e. the bit with the yellow line that no-one uses for parking anyway because they are very quick to fine here.
Access to the rear of 145 and Odd Bins will be un-affected. Hence turning will still be possible.
It is being done as they keep getting fines when they load goods.
So no worries as far as I am concerned - if anything this is quite good for me as now my visitors will be able to park here on weekends and evening without getting fined.
Adrian on 2006-12-07 12:18:43 +0000Adrian,
At the moment any resident or their visitors can use it at evenings or weekend. It isn't true that no-one uses it at the moment, I do if all other spaces are taken.
Bob Hampson on 2006-12-07 13:03:58 +0000Er, including the yellow line bit at the end?
Just so you know, anyone parking there obstructs my garage exit. Its a very tight turn for MPV even without cars parking there.
So please don't park there, use the odd bins spots etc.
Adrian on 2006-12-08 11:23:02 +0000This road used to be privately owned in the past and was taken over by the council fifty to sixty years ago when it was surfaced.
Now as it is a mixture of parking. double and single yellows, and paid bays, maybe any one who is not keen on the forthcoming wine bar in the adjacent road should consider encouraging this application to give local residents a little more control over the local parking?
Peter on 2006-12-20 12:55:34 +0000I'm the owner of 139 SMR (Nosh and flats above) and I can see absolutely no reason why this tiny area of land should not be paved over or excluded from the roadway. The proposal does not affect me or my tenants in any way and I don't have any axe to grind but I am aware that Taylor's (who are much-admired locally) have incredible hassle from parking wardens while trying to undertake their ordinary business. What's the point of ticketing cars at the end of a cul de sac - they're not doing anyone any harm.
The back yards and roadway behind Oddbins and Nosh are completely unaffected and frankly it's an anomaly that the section behind Taylor's is not privately owned as it's surrounded on 3 of its 4 sides by brick walls, garage accesses and a high garden fence. Even if it is blocked off as proposed there would still be more than adequate room for Mr Hampson to turn his car or for his kids to practice their cycling (why not do it in the service road opposite or the local parks) and I can't see how the loss of a single parking space (any more cars would block the garage access) could ever be that crucial.
mike isaacs on 2006-12-20 13:18:59 +0000Add a comment