4.5 Annex 19, which is a letter sent to Mike Chitty (in reply to the 11 April 2002 letter) by Brian Mason on 10 August 2002. This refers to a series of emails and telephone conversations, and offers a meeting to discuss each of the 21 identified paths. Mike Chitty has no written record of any subsequent meetings, but his recollection of Brian Mason's view is that the use of the path was so well-established and the path itself so clearly defined that its formal inclusion on the Rights of Way Map was not regarded as a priority.
4.6 Regarding statement (vii) - about the role of the Gateacre Society more recently - it is untrue to say that we have had to go "canvassing for support". Within days of the wall being built in March 2016, numerous local residents had contacted the Council - by telephone or email - asking for the wall to be removed. It was the City Council's Highways Department who - faced with the prospect of having to process 40 or more individual claims from local residents - asked the Gateacre Society to submit a single claim on behalf of all.
4.7 Regarding statements (v) and (vi) - about the involvement of the Police - we can find no evidence of past incidents which might be said to justify the building of the wall. Nor have the Police been able to confirm having given any advice to the residents of Byron Court, prior to the wall being built. Having read the Byron Court Management Company's Landowner Evidence Form and covering letter, Mike Chitty lodged a Freedom of Information Act request on 1 November 2016 to obtain details of all communications between Merseyside Police and the residents of Byron Court. The FOI Act response (21 Nov 2016) indicates that the only contact with the Police was AFTER the wall was built.
4.8 This is what Sgt Frank Stott, of the Architectural Liaison Unit, wrote following a visit to Byron Court on 4th July 2016 (see Annex 20):
"[A Byron Court resident] explained that the development had been experiencing problems with local criminals who were using the development for dumping and hiding vehicles and when challenged by residents they had become increasingly aggressive.... In addition to this the grounds were being used for anti-social behaviour with sexual activity also being reported as taking place.... Some residents had previously said that they had become increasingly worried actually walking within the grounds due to people living on adjacent roads driving at speed through the development and exiting via a hole left within a perimeter wall. This had not been re-instated by the original builders. It is this wall which had now been re-instated at cost by the residents."