Helston councillor stakes his claim to 'grotty' lane in bid to get work done

Falmouth Packet: Helston councillor stakes his claim to 'grotty' lane in bid to get work done Helston councillor stakes his claim to 'grotty' lane in bid to get work done

A new “owner” has come forward to stake a claim on a Helston walkway that is falling into increasing disrepair.

Peacocks Lane, running from the bottom car park to Coinagehall Street, has been the topic of conversation at council meetings for months, over its pot holes and general poor state.

It was also named as the walking route most needing improvement in a recent questionnaire of residents.

Yet despite extensive enquiries town regeneration officer Martin Searle has been unable to trace the lane’s owner to carry out repairs.

In a dramatic turn of events last Thursday, however, town councillor John Martin stood up at a full meeting of the council and stated: “I would like to claim ownership at Peacocks Lane in order for you to continue.”

He challenged anyone else to contest that claim and come forward.

Falmouth Packet:

It was after Mr Searle said he had received legal advice to warn against the council resurfacing it as it would be without the owner’s consent and could amount to the council taking on a duty of care. This could potentially leave it open to being sued.

He described the news as “disappointing although not altogether unexpected.”

However, as a result of Mr Martin’s claims councillor Mark Upton proposed the council wrote to “the owner” to ask for permission to resurface the lane.

Mayor Jonathan Radford-Gaby “urged caution,” despite appreciating the sentiment behind it, and councillors Martine Knight, Mark Upton and Ronnie Williams were the only members in favour of this, with Mr Martin abstaining from the vote.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:09am Thu 27 Mar 14

DCI Jen says...

Now to me, that just sounds like a typical thing a 'Martin' would do!!!

Seem to remember another 'Martin' pulling a stunt similar to that, once, good thing it worked because they had no plan B!!!
Now to me, that just sounds like a typical thing a 'Martin' would do!!! Seem to remember another 'Martin' pulling a stunt similar to that, once, good thing it worked because they had no plan B!!! DCI Jen
  • Score: 5

1:08pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe says...

So there must be a mouth under that copious moustache then ;-)
So there must be a mouth under that copious moustache then ;-) Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe
  • Score: -1

2:02pm Thu 27 Mar 14

DCI Jen says...

Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe wrote:
So there must be a mouth under that copious moustache then ;-)
Lol, think he's a good Cllr though, the majority of them are.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So there must be a mouth under that copious moustache then ;-)[/p][/quote]Lol, think he's a good Cllr though, the majority of them are. DCI Jen
  • Score: 3

1:32pm Sat 29 Mar 14

ronedgcumbe says...

A very good move by an excellent councillor. A shame it did not receive the support it deserved.
Never knew it was called peacocks lane.
A very good move by an excellent councillor. A shame it did not receive the support it deserved. Never knew it was called peacocks lane. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: 3

1:32pm Sat 29 Mar 14

ronedgcumbe says...

A very good move by an excellent councillor. A shame it did not receive the support it deserved.
Never knew it was called peacocks lane.
A very good move by an excellent councillor. A shame it did not receive the support it deserved. Never knew it was called peacocks lane. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: 4

3:25pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Gillian R.Z. Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
A very good move by an excellent councillor. A shame it did not receive the support it deserved.
Never knew it was called peacocks lane.
I suggest it did not receive full support because the majority of Councillors acknowledged the risk of the legal complications that it could incur.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: A very good move by an excellent councillor. A shame it did not receive the support it deserved. Never knew it was called peacocks lane.[/p][/quote]I suggest it did not receive full support because the majority of Councillors acknowledged the risk of the legal complications that it could incur. Gillian R.Z. Martin
  • Score: 4

4:33pm Sat 29 Mar 14

ronedgcumbe says...

I disagree Gill. This should be applauded it is not good enough to simply sit on the fence.
I disagree Gill. This should be applauded it is not good enough to simply sit on the fence. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: 8

7:41pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Gillian R.Z. Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
I disagree Gill. This should be applauded it is not good enough to simply sit on the fence.
Ron, the council is not sitting on the fence, they say they cannot trace the owner, not every bit of land is 'land registered,' if they resurface the lane they could then leave themselves open to being sued, they need the owners permission. I believe for Councillor John Martin to claim ownership he would in effect have to adopt the lane by usage, over a timescale unchallenged, he then would be liable for any future adverse claims, as would the council for any claims related to the resurfacing work.
I live in an unadopted road and I certainly would not want to adopt it. I would rather adopt the Guildhall!
If Councillor John Martin wants to adopt Peacocks Lane then I would suggest the council makes sure it is land registered in his name before they resurface it with his permission.

I contemplated purchasing a house in Champions Court, until I discovered the steps to the public alleyway adjacent and part of the alleyway would become my responsibility!
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: I disagree Gill. This should be applauded it is not good enough to simply sit on the fence.[/p][/quote]Ron, the council is not sitting on the fence, they say they cannot trace the owner, not every bit of land is 'land registered,' if they resurface the lane they could then leave themselves open to being sued, they need the owners permission. I believe for Councillor John Martin to claim ownership he would in effect have to adopt the lane by usage, over a timescale unchallenged, he then would be liable for any future adverse claims, as would the council for any claims related to the resurfacing work. I live in an unadopted road and I certainly would not want to adopt it. I would rather adopt the Guildhall! If Councillor John Martin wants to adopt Peacocks Lane then I would suggest the council makes sure it is land registered in his name before they resurface it with his permission. I contemplated purchasing a house in Champions Court, until I discovered the steps to the public alleyway adjacent and part of the alleyway would become my responsibility! Gillian R.Z. Martin
  • Score: 10

2:59pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Helston Observer says...

I believe John Martin is an excellent Councillor, but I understand why there was hesitation to support his idea, bearing in mind the legal complications. Good old Ron, quick with the criticism as usual without thinking about the consequences - thank God he was never elected himself!!
I believe John Martin is an excellent Councillor, but I understand why there was hesitation to support his idea, bearing in mind the legal complications. Good old Ron, quick with the criticism as usual without thinking about the consequences - thank God he was never elected himself!! Helston Observer
  • Score: -6

5:35pm Mon 31 Mar 14

telstar1962 says...

Extensive enquiries by Martin Searle have failed to trace the owner

Mark Upton proposes to write to the owner

Um, have I missed something here: does the land have a post-box ? or didn't Mr Searle write to the owner ???
Extensive enquiries by Martin Searle have failed to trace the owner Mark Upton proposes to write to the owner Um, have I missed something here: does the land have a post-box ? or didn't Mr Searle write to the owner ??? telstar1962
  • Score: -9

6:04pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Rainbow over Helston says...

Cllr Upton was going to write to Cllr Martin obviously if he claimed ownership.
Cllr Upton was going to write to Cllr Martin obviously if he claimed ownership. Rainbow over Helston
  • Score: 9

10:54pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Helston Leo says...

Do you think if I tripped up in Peacocks Lane tonight that Cllr. Martin would take responsibility and settle a compensation claim. The council have legal advisors. Some of you posters seem to me to have a problem with facts. I note some of you never repost and admit when you get something wrong either. Are some of you the type of people that would never apologise when your'e in the wrong I wonder. Martin Searle can't write to an unidentified owner, and if Cllr. Martin wants ownership then he will need to advertise for months for the real owner to come forward. Helston Observer is right.
Do you think if I tripped up in Peacocks Lane tonight that Cllr. Martin would take responsibility and settle a compensation claim. The council have legal advisors. Some of you posters seem to me to have a problem with facts. I note some of you never repost and admit when you get something wrong either. Are some of you the type of people that would never apologise when your'e in the wrong I wonder. Martin Searle can't write to an unidentified owner, and if Cllr. Martin wants ownership then he will need to advertise for months for the real owner to come forward. Helston Observer is right. Helston Leo
  • Score: 7

8:01am Tue 1 Apr 14

Gillian R.Z. Martin says...

Helston Leo wrote:
Do you think if I tripped up in Peacocks Lane tonight that Cllr. Martin would take responsibility and settle a compensation claim. The council have legal advisors. Some of you posters seem to me to have a problem with facts. I note some of you never repost and admit when you get something wrong either. Are some of you the type of people that would never apologise when your'e in the wrong I wonder. Martin Searle can't write to an unidentified owner, and if Cllr. Martin wants ownership then he will need to advertise for months for the real owner to come forward. Helston Observer is right.
I always apologize when I am wrong, I have re-posted in the past and said when I had it wrong. If one will not be corrected on anything then one does not learn anything, and I personally would rather learn from others than remain oblivious to facts and information.
[quote][p][bold]Helston Leo[/bold] wrote: Do you think if I tripped up in Peacocks Lane tonight that Cllr. Martin would take responsibility and settle a compensation claim. The council have legal advisors. Some of you posters seem to me to have a problem with facts. I note some of you never repost and admit when you get something wrong either. Are some of you the type of people that would never apologise when your'e in the wrong I wonder. Martin Searle can't write to an unidentified owner, and if Cllr. Martin wants ownership then he will need to advertise for months for the real owner to come forward. Helston Observer is right.[/p][/quote]I always apologize when I am wrong, I have re-posted in the past and said when I had it wrong. If one will not be corrected on anything then one does not learn anything, and I personally would rather learn from others than remain oblivious to facts and information. Gillian R.Z. Martin
  • Score: 11

10:36am Tue 1 Apr 14

Helston fly on the wall says...

Ron, the council made the right decision, its no good Cllr Martin just laying claim to the footpath so the council resurface it, because what would stop the original owner coming forward and then the onus would be on the council. So whoever keeps voting your comment up I think is misguided. The council have to stay within the law. I suspect you would be the first to criticise the waste of money, as well as other things, if the Packet headline was to be "Helston Town Council sued"

Helston Leo, think you should name names so people know who you mean.
I applaud Helston Observer for naming names and saying exactly what they think, if someone is critical of someone or more than one person then I think they should stand by their views and name people.

Do agree with Helston Leo though, too many people won't admit when there're wrong.
Ron, the council made the right decision, its no good Cllr Martin just laying claim to the footpath so the council resurface it, because what would stop the original owner coming forward and then the onus would be on the council. So whoever keeps voting your comment up I think is misguided. The council have to stay within the law. I suspect you would be the first to criticise the waste of money, as well as other things, if the Packet headline was to be "Helston Town Council sued" Helston Leo, think you should name names so people know who you mean. I applaud Helston Observer for naming names and saying exactly what they think, if someone is critical of someone or more than one person then I think they should stand by their views and name people. Do agree with Helston Leo though, too many people won't admit when there're wrong. Helston fly on the wall
  • Score: 18

12:58pm Tue 1 Apr 14

ronedgcumbe says...

I have always apologised when I have got my facts wrong but would never apologise for stating an opinion or expect any one else to.
I think this is a reasonable course to take if the alternative is to do nothing and anyone is perfectly entitled to have a different opinion to me.
As for naming people I use my own name.
I have always apologised when I have got my facts wrong but would never apologise for stating an opinion or expect any one else to. I think this is a reasonable course to take if the alternative is to do nothing and anyone is perfectly entitled to have a different opinion to me. As for naming people I use my own name. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -8

1:30pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Helston fly on the wall says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
I have always apologised when I have got my facts wrong but would never apologise for stating an opinion or expect any one else to.
I think this is a reasonable course to take if the alternative is to do nothing and anyone is perfectly entitled to have a different opinion to me.
As for naming people I use my own name.
Ron when I said people should stand by their views and name people, I didn't mean posting under their own name, I meant if they want to criticise someone then they should name the person like Helston Observer did, not just make a critical remark like Helston Leo did and not specify who they are referring to. How do we know who is being criticised if people don't specify, either that or they should quote the persons comment. It gives then gives the named person a proper chance to reply.
You are entitled to your opinion but when you are faced with cold hard facts which involve legal procedures and refuse to acknowledge them, I think that is plain silly, what would you in court I wonder. The council are doing the right thing that is why the majority went against the idea. The other side of the coin too, is if Cllr Martin wants to claim the lane is his then why should the council pay to resurface it? He should pay for it himself. YOU complained about Cllrs getting grants in the past!!!! Are the council going to pay to resurface my pathway that other people use like the postmen? You have contradictory opinions, no grants for Cllrs and people to clean up their business's but pay to resurface a lane a Cllr claims is his!!!
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: I have always apologised when I have got my facts wrong but would never apologise for stating an opinion or expect any one else to. I think this is a reasonable course to take if the alternative is to do nothing and anyone is perfectly entitled to have a different opinion to me. As for naming people I use my own name.[/p][/quote]Ron when I said people should stand by their views and name people, I didn't mean posting under their own name, I meant if they want to criticise someone then they should name the person like Helston Observer did, not just make a critical remark like Helston Leo did and not specify who they are referring to. How do we know who is being criticised if people don't specify, either that or they should quote the persons comment. It gives then gives the named person a proper chance to reply. You are entitled to your opinion but when you are faced with cold hard facts which involve legal procedures and refuse to acknowledge them, I think that is plain silly, what would you in court I wonder. The council are doing the right thing that is why the majority went against the idea. The other side of the coin too, is if Cllr Martin wants to claim the lane is his then why should the council pay to resurface it? He should pay for it himself. YOU complained about Cllrs getting grants in the past!!!! Are the council going to pay to resurface my pathway that other people use like the postmen? You have contradictory opinions, no grants for Cllrs and people to clean up their business's but pay to resurface a lane a Cllr claims is his!!! Helston fly on the wall
  • Score: 9

1:38pm Tue 1 Apr 14

telstar1962 says...

I admit that I am also nearly perfect, but admit that I misunderstood the real meaning behind the ''''real owner'''' Now that's been pointed out to me I see the funny side of it

I also admit that I may be too sarcastic and poke fun at people, when I shouldn't, for which I apologize. At the same time, in my opinion, things can be taken too seriously, and some sort of sense of humour could be an asset to people who take things too seriously all of the time.

Back to the subject: it should be the Town Council's responsibility to contact the Land Registry in order to ascertain who owns the land, and whether it is has a Registered Title number or if it is Unregistered Land. And in any event, for a relatively small fee ( in comparison to the £250k available for improvements) the enquiry should be made, presumably with the legal advice around how to proceed in finding the '''lawful owner''.
I admit that I am also nearly perfect, but admit that I misunderstood the real meaning behind the ''''real owner'''' Now that's been pointed out to me I see the funny side of it I also admit that I may be too sarcastic and poke fun at people, when I shouldn't, for which I apologize. At the same time, in my opinion, things can be taken too seriously, and some sort of sense of humour could be an asset to people who take things too seriously all of the time. Back to the subject: it should be the Town Council's responsibility to contact the Land Registry in order to ascertain who owns the land, and whether it is has a Registered Title number or if it is Unregistered Land. And in any event, for a relatively small fee ( in comparison to the £250k available for improvements) the enquiry should be made, presumably with the legal advice around how to proceed in finding the '''lawful owner''. telstar1962
  • Score: -7

1:50pm Tue 1 Apr 14

telstar1962 says...

Furthermore, if the Land Registry cannot help in locating a piece of land, then it is usual practice to write to adjoining property owners and all Utility companies to see if they claim to own it, and then if a blank is drawn, a Form of Indemnity may be drawn up by a Solicitor, signed by the person claiming ownership, backed up by a special Insurance Policy for a one-off premium, which would cover the '''new owner''' in case the '''original owner''' or their successors resurface at a future date, with evidence of legal entitlement.
Furthermore, if the Land Registry cannot help in locating a piece of land, then it is usual practice to write to adjoining property owners and all Utility companies to see if they claim to own it, and then if a blank is drawn, a Form of Indemnity may be drawn up by a Solicitor, signed by the person claiming ownership, backed up by a special Insurance Policy for a one-off premium, which would cover the '''new owner''' in case the '''original owner''' or their successors resurface at a future date, with evidence of legal entitlement. telstar1962
  • Score: -8

2:00pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Helston Leo says...

The council know the legalities, it is a question of Cllr. Martin not having them in place.
The council know the legalities, it is a question of Cllr. Martin not having them in place. Helston Leo
  • Score: 9

2:16pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Helston fly on the wall says...

Once again, telstar does not name those who he thinks should have a sense of humour, and I take it by the sarcastic "being nearly perfect" that is yet another dig at Gills comment as she was the first one to post in reply to Helston Leo. Like I said, if people weren't too cowardly to name names it would stop confusion and allow the right people to reply.
It's not a case of no sense of humour its a case of not liking constant digs, take Gill for example, digs and rudeness given by Three Word Wonder and by miss perfect, and David so called Bennetts, and take Ron for example he takes digs that's why I said at least Helston Observer is up front with names. Too easy for others to be rude or have digs without naming people.
Seeing as I think telstar has all the answers from google perhaps he should email the council and tell them.
Once again, telstar does not name those who he thinks should have a sense of humour, and I take it by the sarcastic "being nearly perfect" that is yet another dig at Gills comment as she was the first one to post in reply to Helston Leo. Like I said, if people weren't too cowardly to name names it would stop confusion and allow the right people to reply. It's not a case of no sense of humour its a case of not liking constant digs, take Gill for example, digs and rudeness given by Three Word Wonder and by miss perfect, and David so called Bennetts, and take Ron for example he takes digs that's why I said at least Helston Observer is up front with names. Too easy for others to be rude or have digs without naming people. Seeing as I think telstar has all the answers from google perhaps he should email the council and tell them. Helston fly on the wall
  • Score: 9

5:26pm Tue 1 Apr 14

telstar1962 says...

I will not list you all, may offend some by missing you out. You are too sensitive, some of you lol I have not posted maliciously or been abusive. I am not having a dig at anyone. (I rarely use the ''quote'' when writing, and just because some comments are directy below another writer doesn't mean I am only referring to their thoughts)

I, Arthur Dish, of Number One Antenna, Goonhilly Downs Helston, Cornwall hereby declare that is my name and address. dob circa 1962. Nationality: British. Doesn't have GSOH. WLTM...

My knowledge is from experience with an unknown property owner with neighbouring land at a previous address. To summise, as Fly on the Wall, that I may have this information just from Googling, shows his ignorance.

To then suggest I write to the Town Council as I ''have all the answers'', would be wasting my time, since on two previous occasions I have not had the courtesy of a response.

Also, Leo states that The Council will know the legalities. My comment above was outlining how a similar case was resolved in my own personal circumstances, but if you have the time I am sure if you Google ''How to find the owner of land'' then there will be plenty to keep you occupied for a while
I will not list you all, may offend some by missing you out. You are too sensitive, some of you lol I have not posted maliciously or been abusive. I am not having a dig at anyone. (I rarely use the ''quote'' when writing, and just because some comments are directy below another writer doesn't mean I am only referring to their thoughts) I, Arthur Dish, of Number One Antenna, Goonhilly Downs Helston, Cornwall hereby declare that is my name and address. dob circa 1962. Nationality: British. Doesn't have GSOH. WLTM... My knowledge is from experience with an unknown property owner with neighbouring land at a previous address. To summise, as Fly on the Wall, that I may have this information just from Googling, shows his ignorance. To then suggest I write to the Town Council as I ''have all the answers'', would be wasting my time, since on two previous occasions I have not had the courtesy of a response. Also, Leo states that The Council will know the legalities. My comment above was outlining how a similar case was resolved in my own personal circumstances, but if you have the time I am sure if you Google ''How to find the owner of land'' then there will be plenty to keep you occupied for a while telstar1962
  • Score: -9

7:19pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Helston fly on the wall says...

Who didn't answer your two previous emails telstar1962? The town clerk or a Cllr? I live in the town so its easy for me to go bang on the office door lol
Who didn't answer your two previous emails telstar1962? The town clerk or a Cllr? I live in the town so its easy for me to go bang on the office door lol Helston fly on the wall
  • Score: 7

8:55pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Gillian R.Z. Martin says...

I find it surprising that telstar says on two occasions he did not have the courtesy of a response from the Town Council. Helston have a very good Town Clerk and I have always received prompt replies to my emails. Perhaps there was a fault with their computer system at the time.
If I received no reply I would not just have given up.
I find it surprising that telstar says on two occasions he did not have the courtesy of a response from the Town Council. Helston have a very good Town Clerk and I have always received prompt replies to my emails. Perhaps there was a fault with their computer system at the time. If I received no reply I would not just have given up. Gillian R.Z. Martin
  • Score: 10

10:21pm Tue 1 Apr 14

telstar1962 says...

It was not only a surprise, but I was extremely disappointed that my mail was ignored.

Gillian R.Z. Martin is correct when she infers that I should not have given up so easily. Perhaps my e-mails were ''lost in the post''

Anyway, let's hope the ownership of Peacock Lane will be resolved soon, and the pot holes and walk way improved for everyone's benefit
It was not only a surprise, but I was extremely disappointed that my mail was ignored. Gillian R.Z. Martin is correct when she infers that I should not have given up so easily. Perhaps my e-mails were ''lost in the post'' Anyway, let's hope the ownership of Peacock Lane will be resolved soon, and the pot holes and walk way improved for everyone's benefit telstar1962
  • Score: -9

8:06am Wed 2 Apr 14

Gillian R.Z. Martin says...

I am sorry telstar, I just assumed you were referring to emails because I thought I remembered a long time ago on here you mentioned a couple of your emails had remained unanswered by the town clerk, because I then commented on your comment at the time. Presumably then you were referring to mail by post.
I was not inferring that you should have not given up, I was simply saying what I personally would do. I just personally would not state on a public website that Helston Town Council did not afford the courtesy of a reply to you, without taking up the issue with them first.
I am sorry telstar, I just assumed you were referring to emails because I thought I remembered a long time ago on here you mentioned a couple of your emails had remained unanswered by the town clerk, because I then commented on your comment at the time. Presumably then you were referring to mail by post. I was not inferring that you should have not given up, I was simply saying what I personally would do. I just personally would not state on a public website that Helston Town Council did not afford the courtesy of a reply to you, without taking up the issue with them first. Gillian R.Z. Martin
  • Score: 6

9:12am Wed 2 Apr 14

Helston Leo says...

If I was the town clerk or Cllr. I wouldn't reply to any email or letter if it contained the sarcasm that telstar1962 seems to answer people with. He would make a lousy Cllr. Inv my personal sight.
If I was the town clerk or Cllr. I wouldn't reply to any email or letter if it contained the sarcasm that telstar1962 seems to answer people with. He would make a lousy Cllr. Inv my personal sight. Helston Leo
  • Score: 8

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree