Signage at Liverpool Airport (LJLA) - an update |
Signage at Liverpool Airport (LJLA) - an update |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 19 Oct 2016 - 10:27
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Tue, 8 May 2018 - 10:17
Post
#282
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Wed, 9 May 2018 - 09:19
Post
#284
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
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. 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 |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Wed, 9 May 2018 - 13:39
Post
#286
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 9 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,346 |
... 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.
|
|
|
Wed, 9 May 2018 - 14:59
Post
#287
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
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? |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 |
... 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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Wed, 9 May 2018 - 22:51
Post
#292
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
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? |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
Fri, 11 May 2018 - 09:15
Post
#294
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,337 Joined: 4 Jan 2007 Member No.: 9,897 |
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 |
|
|
Sat, 12 May 2018 - 04:22
Post
#295
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 221 Joined: 4 Oct 2010 From: Liverpool Member No.: 41,035 |
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. |
|
|
Sat, 12 May 2018 - 10:45
Post
#296
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
|
|
|
Sat, 12 May 2018 - 12:22
Post
#297
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:42 |