In his advice note, Mr Jackson suggests that "the Inspector could, in the exercise of his discretion, treat the appeal as having been brought by the Tenants themselves" who "all hold properly registered legal leasehold estates and unquestionably have the necessary standing and interest". This overlooks the fact that each individual flat-owner's legal Title is limited to the footprint of part of the Byron Court building, and does not include the car park across which the Right of Way passes. Furthermore, of all those people who have objected to the Order or given evidence at this Inquiry, only four of them are current residents of Byron Court. No evidence has been forthcoming about the views of the other 16 flat owners. Is it "beyond reason" (to use Mr Jackson's phrase) that some of these people may have made use of the Right of Way as a convenient means of accessing Acrefield Road? Is it beyond reason that they and the freeholder, Hayne Securities, may view the existence of this alternative means of access to their property as an advantage in future years? Is there any real difference between houses which front on to a conventional pavement, alongside a public highway such as Hollytree Road, and the apartments within Byron Court which front on to a Public Right of Way?
As I said in our Opening Statement on 27th March, the Gateacre Society lodged this Right of Way Claim, and has participated in this Public Inquiry, on behalf of a wide range of individuals, not just our own members. These individuals comprise past, present and future residents of the area - including future residents of Byron Court. We have appreciated the opportunity to state and explain our case, and we hope for a successful outcome. We ask that the Order be confirmed.
THE GATEACRE SOCIETY
14 August 2018