DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93927--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: October 13, 2025, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ownership of the land is legally distinct from the applicability
of airport bylaws. Southgate Park lies within the designated
Stansted Airport bylaw boundary—typically defined under the
Stansted Airport Bylaws 1991 or subsequent amendments—then those
bylaws apply regardless of who holds the title.
This is a classic case of jurisdictional overlay: the bylaws
regulate conduct within a geographic zone, not based on
ownership but on location. Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd owns the
freehold at Southgate Park, and any activity on that land is
still subject to airport-specific restrictions, enforcement
powers, or operational controls—especially if the bylaws were
enacted under statutory authority like the Civil Aviation Act
1982.
Stansted Airport Ltd is the legal entity that operates Stansted
Airport. It’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Manchester Airports
Holdings Ltd.
Freehold ownership means Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd holds the title
to the land at Southgate Park. They control its use, lease, and
development—subject to planning law and other statutory
constraints. Byelaw jurisdiction is a regulatory overlay. It
applies to any land within a defined geographic boundary,
regardless of who owns it.
#Post#: 93928--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 13, 2025, 2:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, you misunderstood my post.
I simply restated what MET had said. My conclusion was that 'It
seems quite clear that the creditor's evidence is seeking to
disapply the byelaws in favour of their contract with Starbucks,
the lessee. (OP, I haven't seen the landowner authority. Is it
Starbucks and are they a lessee? I'm assuming they are.)
That the land is not 'relevant land' cannot be disputed as the
byelaws are clear, and this is a matter for the assessor.
#Post#: 93951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stansted - MET Southgate Park Starbucks
DIR By: b789
Date: October 13, 2025, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MET's contract is with Tabacon Stansted 2 Ltd, the freeholder.
Starbucks and McDonalds will be the lessees,
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page