Other documents which have come to light since May 2016, and copies of which are enclosed with this letter, are as follows:
(Annex 13). 'Site Plan Existing' submitted in August 1998 as part of planning application 98P/1647 for the change of use of Acrefield Bank from residential care home to residential use (thirteen flats).This indicates that, in addition to the roadway, a flight of steps linked Glenacres with the north side of the care home building.
(Annex 14). 'Revised Layout' plan (Application No. D23322, to build the flats that became Glenacres) dated August 1967. This plan makes clear that there was no wall between the Glenacres roadway and the grounds of Acrefield Bank (marked on the plan as 'OAP Hostel'). The wording alongside the boundary reads: "3 courses granite setts".
(Annex 15). The Ordnance Survey Edition of 1971. This map confirms that the main route from Acrefield Road to Woolton Park used to run along Glenacres and then through part of what is now Woolton Park Close. However, it also indicates a flight of steps allowing pedestrian access between Acrefield Bank (and hence Woolton Park) and Glenacres.
(Annex 16). An Ownership plan of the Former Royal Liverpool Babies Hospital Site, dated June 1992, showing the boundaries of the various land parcels (LCC Housing Committee, LCC Social Services Committee and Private ownership) at that time.
Also enclosed (as Annex 17) are seven further User Evidence Forms (Form E), completed and signed by local residents too late for inclusion as part of the original Right of Way Claim.
The response of the Byron Court Management Company to our Right of Way Claim in May 2016 was a Landowner Evidence Form (Form F) and covering letter, dated 26th July 2016, signed by Ms Veronica Gambin and Mr Paul Rattigan making the following statements:
(i) "We do not accept that the previous owner of the land, being the Local Authority, had allowed any implied right or had dedicated any right of access."
(ii) "It is also not feasible to accept that the Liverpool City Council Planning Authority would not have insisted that a public right of way be protected at the design, planning and building stages of the Byron Court Development, which clearly it has not been".
(iii) "Furthermore, it is unrealistic to accept that if such a right of way existed, then the Gateacre Society would not have sought to have it declared on the Definitive Map at that stage … There is no evidence to suggest this was the case".
(iv) "Until the last few years, the fact that we had signs, bollards and that a number of our residents challenged people in the grounds, was sufficient to deter people walking through our property … It must have been clear to any reasonable person that property was 'private' and there was nothing to suggest that it could be anything other than private property".
(v) "In more recent years we've struggled with continued issues Anti Social Behaviour and Crime, which at times has involved the regular attendance of the Police and threats of violence to our residents who have challenged people in our grounds".
Continued . . .