Told to stop taking photos !

[inophoto]

Madness. I am pleased to say that so far 'knock on wood' I have not had so much as an ugly stare.

 

[shiato storm]

Is it.... I wonder??

Notices can be deceptive.

As far as I remember, the London eye was built on Queens Walk, on the Thames Embankment, as a TEMPORARY structure to celebrate the Millenium. It was supposed to have been torn down in 2001, and is now an 'illegal' structure in contravention of planning regulations, and is still subject to an on-going case in the courts, following 'temporary extended permission which expired in 2005.

The Thames Embankment is certainly a public right of way.

http://www.londoneye.com/community/pdf/planning_guide.pdf

apply pigeons...insert cat :rules:

 

[apodo]

Hi Weggy, that may be true, but the approach roads, and the roads through it, if subject to the Road Traffic Act, and I can't see how they could not be, will be public rights of way. Stand on the road, and take all the pics you like.

The building of any estate, private or not, can NEVER take precedence of public rights of way, which is why, despite the attempts of landowners and farmers, there still exist public footpaths in the UK.

The entire estate is private, with the entrance roads being guarded and access being restricted. Nor was there any public right of way before the construction of the estate, with it formerly being a dockyard.

The land came under the control of the LDDC which was set up by the government to regenerate the area, and which had complete power of the use of the land, including being responsible for planning approval, which enabled them to attract private developers.

Michael.

 

[dougdarter]

The entire estate is private, with the entrance roads being guarded and access being restricted. Nor was there any public right of way before the construction of the estate, with it formerly being a dockyard.

The land came under the control of the LDDC which was set up by the government to regenerate the area, and which had complete power of the use of the land, including being responsible for planning approval, which enabled them to attract private developers.

Michael.

Hi,

I can't disagree with anything you say - however, unless the LDDC wishes to have roads that are not subject to the Road Traffic act, which means essentially that national (or local) speed limits cannot be enforced, and where accidents, including those in which people are injured, do not have to be reported to the police, and for which insurance companies will not become involved, and where road markings have no lawful meaning, then the roads at least will be subject to the Road Traffic Act, which by definition, means that the roads at least, are public rights of way.

There is a large commercial estate to the north of Carlisle, the size of a small town, called Kingstown. When it was first built in the late seventies, the developers wished to keep it private, though 'allowing' access to members of the public. It had several miles of 'private' road, two of which were over a mile long, and both were used, day and night by 'boy racers', mostly driving cars which were uninsured, and had no MOT or Tax, which isn't required on private property. There were many accidents and incidents on these roads, and whilst all were reported to police, (I myself attended many accidents there), no action was taken against the perpetrators because for the purposes of the law, it was private property, and not subject to the Road Traffic act. Subsequently, these roads were 'adopted', and handed over to the local authorities, and became roads under the RTA.

This situation still exists, particularly on smaller industrial estates, and large car parks, which is why, if you are involved in an accident in a supermarket car park, the police won't help, and your insurer will almost always insist on recompense on a 'knock for knock' basis, and regardless of fault, you'll lose your no claims bonus.