PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Signage at Liverpool Airport (LJLA) - an update
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 19 Oct 2016 - 10:27
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



For the record and in case it's of any benefit should one of these 'stopping' matters ever come to court this is the latest statement from Liverpool Council in response to my ongoing complaint about the illegality of the signs.

October 19th 2016
QUOTE
"Having had a conversation with the airport yesterday, they have now secured funding to progress the design and have advised me that their consultants will be progressing this on 7 November with a view to submitting the application forthwith.

I can assure you that we are just as frustrated as yourself in the time it is taking to submit the application, but hopefully there is now some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of getting an application submitted."


Earlier this year Liverpool Council (who were not prepared to grant advertising consent for the application then in place - 15A/0657), suggested that LJLA employ design consultants to redesign the signs.
It beggars belief that having confirmed in writing that the current signs are illegal (and by implication will need to be removed), the council still drag their heels and refuse to ask LJLA to remove them until such time as new signs are granted Advertising Consent. It's also seems unlikely that a big organisation like Peel Ports (LJLA) couldn't find funding for sign redesigns earlier.

Chronology
2012, July - Signs erected by LJLA without consent
2015, July - First application for advertising consent
2015, September - Liverpool Council's first indication that discussions with LJLA about the signs are taking place
2016, January - Liverpool Council indicate that the signs have been submitted to the Dept. of Transport to check that they meet the relevant standards.
2016, April - Liverpool Council say "revised signage proposals may come forward as a result of initial feedback that has been given to the applicant"
2016, April 4th - Liverpool Council say "the airport have presented a revised design for the signs which has been checked the Highways department, however there were still some flaws in the design. Highways have now recommended that the Airport employ the services of a specialist consultant to do the redesign. The scheme is back in the airport’s hands at the moment.
2016, May 18th. LJLA withdraw the Advertising Consent application. My guess is that the Council had intimated that they were under pressure to determine the application and would have to reject it.

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 - 10:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
15 Pages V  « < 13 14 15  
Start new topic
Replies (280 - 297)
Advertisement
post Wed, 19 Oct 2016 - 10:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Cuthbert
post Tue, 1 May 2018 - 13:46
Post #281


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 211
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Member No.: 74,894



I was searching Norwich Airport Byelaws.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 10:17
Post #282


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 14:10) *
Its also confirmed by the FOIA request which confirmed the byelaws were still in place and current.


I don't think anyone, not even the airport, disputes that bylaws are in place. The elephant in the room remains, are they obliged to use them to manage landside operations, such as red route stopping? The airport manual seems to be enough to satisfy CAA of airside operations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 11:09
Post #283


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well you have no means to enforce a civil "no stopping" contract, as you cannot possibly agree to something you have no clue of the terms of. SC were quite clear that you had to be given chance to read and undrstand a contract before being bound
Red route is also prohibitive so never acontract
etc

It also doesnt stop this being not relevant land.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 09:19
Post #284


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 12:09) *
Well you have no means to enforce a civil "no stopping" contract, as you cannot possibly agree to something you have no clue of the terms of. SC were quite clear that you had to be given chance to read and undrstand a contract before being bound
Red route is also prohibitive so never acontract
etc


Which is why they are using the Crutchley ruling at the business park as persuasive as the signage is the same ans was held to be sufficient by repetition.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 12:09) *
It also doesnt stop this being not relevant land.

Which is why PoFA defence is essential as a safety net.

This post has been edited by Spudandros: Wed, 9 May 2018 - 09:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 11:54
Post #285


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Spudandros @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 11:17) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 14:10) *
Its also confirmed by the FOIA request which confirmed the byelaws were still in place and current.


I don't think anyone, not even the airport, disputes that bylaws are in place. The elephant in the room remains, are they obliged to use them to manage landside operations, such as red route stopping? The airport manual seems to be enough to satisfy CAA of airside operations.


If we're still talking about LJLA then the airport DO dispute that there are any bylaws, or to be strictly accurate they say they are obsolete.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwaynedouglas
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 13:39
Post #286


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,346



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 12:54) *
... they say they are obsolete.


...But if byelaws become obsolete, they are still in force unless revocation happens, or am I reading this wrong?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-governmen...slation-byelaws

Down to 'Revoking a Byelaw'.


--------------------
I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 14:59
Post #287


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 12:54) *
QUOTE (Spudandros @ Tue, 8 May 2018 - 11:17) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 14:10) *
Its also confirmed by the FOIA request which confirmed the byelaws were still in place and current.


I don't think anyone, not even the airport, disputes that bylaws are in place. The elephant in the room remains, are they obliged to use them to manage landside operations, such as red route stopping? The airport manual seems to be enough to satisfy CAA of airside operations.


If we're still talking about LJLA then the airport DO dispute that there are any bylaws, or to be strictly accurate they say they are obsolete.


That's true, but the point I'm making still stands. Are they obliged to use them as opposed to an alternative, particularly if they consider them obsolete?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 15:43
Post #288


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



They cannot offer a civil contract to do something prhibited in law
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 15:49
Post #289


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Dwaynedouglas @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 14:39) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 12:54) *
... they say they are obsolete.


...But if byelaws become obsolete, they are still in force unless revocation happens, or am I reading this wrong?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-governmen...slation-byelaws

Down to 'Revoking a Byelaw'.


Dwayne,

The need to revoke existing byaws before new ones can come into force was the argument I used with Liverpool Council when I was engaged with them a couple of years ago on ths subject.

The link that you have usefully shown though seems confusing. It says
"The revocation byelaw should not be used where the local council is replacing an entire byelaw set with the current version of the relevant model byelaws. This is because any new set will contain a model revocation byelaw that should be used instead."

It talks about a bylaw (singular) and then talks about a set of bylaws. But since LC (or LJLA) wouldn't be replacing the current bylaws with 'the model bylaws', then it does seem to mean that existing bylaws must be rescinded before a new set are introduced.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 16:20
Post #290


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That's true, but the point I'm making still stands. Are they obliged to use them as opposed to an alternative, particularly if they consider them obsolete?

I think it's arguable

POFA Para 3(3) defines "statutory control", that concerns the byelaws issue

(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)© the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.

There's nothing in POFA that gives the impression that Parliament intended private companies to have the right to issue parking notices under contract law on a public highway

One angle that I don't recall has been explored - who maintains the road
According to POFA 3(1)(a) the road isn't relevant land if it's maintained at public expense
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 16:40
Post #291


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:20) *
One angle that I don't recall has been explored - who maintains the road
According to POFA 3(1)(a) the road isn't relevant land if it's maintained at public expense



Assuming we're talking about Speke Hall Avenue south of the Dunlop Road junction then that has been answered by Liverpool Council.
When eventually granting Advertising Consent for the 'Red Route' signs they were at pains to ensure that the demarcation line was clear. One of the AC conditions was that the road be painted blue for 10m so that it was made quite plain to the public that they were entering a private road.

Given that LC regard it as a private road then I doubt they maintain it as public expense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 22:51
Post #292


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,337
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:40) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:20) *
One angle that I don't recall has been explored - who maintains the road
According to POFA 3(1)(a) the road isn't relevant land if it's maintained at public expense



Assuming we're talking about Speke Hall Avenue south of the Dunlop Road junction then that has been answered by Liverpool Council.
When eventually granting Advertising Consent for the 'Red Route' signs they were at pains to ensure that the demarcation line was clear. One of the AC conditions was that the road be painted blue for 10m so that it was made quite plain to the public that they were entering a private road.

Given that LC regard it as a private road then I doubt they maintain it as public expense.



so where does LC money come from?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 9 May 2018 - 23:13
Post #293


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:40) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:20) *
One angle that I don't recall has been explored - who maintains the road
According to POFA 3(1)(a) the road isn't relevant land if it's maintained at public expense



Assuming we're talking about Speke Hall Avenue south of the Dunlop Road junction then that has been answered by Liverpool Council.
When eventually granting Advertising Consent for the 'Red Route' signs they were at pains to ensure that the demarcation line was clear. One of the AC conditions was that the road be painted blue for 10m so that it was made quite plain to the public that they were entering a private road.

Given that LC regard it as a private road then I doubt they maintain it as public expense.



so where does LC money come from?

Sorry I don't understand. LC money comes from the public in the form of the Community Charge and Businesses from Rates. But they don't use it to repair private roads
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 09:15
Post #294


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,337
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 00:13) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:40) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:20) *
One angle that I don't recall has been explored - who maintains the road
According to POFA 3(1)(a) the road isn't relevant land if it's maintained at public expense



Assuming we're talking about Speke Hall Avenue south of the Dunlop Road junction then that has been answered by Liverpool Council.
When eventually granting Advertising Consent for the 'Red Route' signs they were at pains to ensure that the demarcation line was clear. One of the AC conditions was that the road be painted blue for 10m so that it was made quite plain to the public that they were entering a private road.

Given that LC regard it as a private road then I doubt they maintain it as public expense.



so where does LC money come from?

Sorry I don't understand. LC money comes from the public in the form of the Community Charge and Businesses from Rates. But they don't use it to repair private roads



ok , but do LC repair the roads at JLA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Esmerobbo
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 04:22
Post #295


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 221
Joined: 4 Oct 2010
From: Liverpool
Member No.: 41,035



QUOTE (freddy1 @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 09:15) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 00:13) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:40) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 17:20) *
One angle that I don't recall has been explored - who maintains the road
According to POFA 3(1)(a) the road isn't relevant land if it's maintained at public expense



Assuming we're talking about Speke Hall Avenue south of the Dunlop Road junction then that has been answered by Liverpool Council.
When eventually granting Advertising Consent for the 'Red Route' signs they were at pains to ensure that the demarcation line was clear. One of the AC conditions was that the road be painted blue for 10m so that it was made quite plain to the public that they were entering a private road.

Given that LC regard it as a private road then I doubt they maintain it as public expense.



so where does LC money come from?

Sorry I don't understand. LC money comes from the public in the form of the Community Charge and Businesses from Rates. But they don't use it to repair private roads



ok , but do LC repair the roads at JLA


They are responsible for Dunlop and Hale road and do not even maintain them, Speke Hall avenue at it's junction with Dunlop road was sold to JLA in 2001. One point though the council made a bus lane along Speke hall avenue and it did cross the boundary into the JLA part of the road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 10:45
Post #296


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 00:13) *
in the form of the Community Charge

The what? Do keep up. The Poll Tax was around for just 3 years and went away TWENTY FIVE YEARS ago.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 12:22
Post #297


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 16:43) *
They cannot offer a civil contract to do something prhibited in law


That assumes that the bylaws says stopping is a bylaw breach. Do they?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Thu, 16 Jan 2020 - 10:19
Post #298


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



In case it's not been identified in another thread, attached is a pdf copy of what Liverpool JLA are currently showing as their draft Byelaws for 2019.

Their website version here Website version of draft Byelaws calls them draft Bylaws 2020.

I think we must assume that since they are still in draft then they are not yet in force and that the old Merseyside byelaws from 1982 still apply.
I've asked the DfT for a comment on where they are with approving them. The last time I commented on this here (not sure how long ago without searching but probably 18 months or so) the DfT were still arguing with LJLA over them.


Attached File(s)
Attached File  LJLA_draft_byelaws_2019.pdf ( 268.3K ) Number of downloads: 65
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

15 Pages V  « < 13 14 15
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:42
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here