New development at the end of an unadopted road

[blueg33]

hunton69 said:

stavers said:

More than enough houses. We don't need to build any more apart from the fact that it makes people lots of money so the developers give the back handers to the right people and it all carries on.

The biggest problem is that houses are seen as investments rather than places to live and people are prepared to pay stupid money for them based on that reason.

Coventry is currently having about 2500 houses built one green belt on the way out to Birmingham yet a newspaper report said that nearly 3000 houses are sat empty in Coventry. So why does it need another 2500 houses destroying conuntryside?

Hemel Hempstead up the road have so many empty flats 250 immigrants were put in them 6 months ago

Watford in the other direction is putting up 8,000 flats 27 storeys high they can’t sell them
Camden council London is shipping 1,200 out residents out as they’re knocking those ste holes dow.
These developments are not for locals.

Camden are rebuilding their stock, but they have to decant residents first. Quite a few London boroughs are doing the same

[blueg33]

hunton69 said:

blueg33 said:

Not correct. In some locations doctors on £100k qualify. Also there are a range of different tenures with different affordability criteria.

Not for these ones. I know where your coming from

Doctor on 100 grand is going to live in a rabbit hutch… that’s funny

For any given number of bed spaces a social house is likely to be bigger than a market house as they have to meet NDSS

[Collectingbrass]

hunton69 said:

My question: What happens if the residents park so badly on a regular basis that the lorries required to provide machines and material can not gain access.

I have been involved in a similar situation, as the main contractor's management representative. Once work starts the developer will bring in private security and will seek to ensure their access rights. The developer will initially seek legal resolution to the access issues as they can't sell the houses without it, and that is where the other road users can best secure their rights and prevent damage to the private road.

Eventually the protest will become heated at which point the police will be called. In my case, the protestors refused a reasonable request to move on and were arrested for Breach of the Peace. They were prosecuted, found guilty and fined. The project was completed on time.

[eccles]

scsracing said:

hunton69 said:

It’s been empty for 30 years
I agree I want housing there my concern is those that won’t have a car in the affordable housing must walk 1.3 km to get a pint of milk
To qualify for social housing you have to have pitfall wage

1.3km, brutal!!

All those poor people without cars crawling passed their betters in their 3 bedroom houses!

[Super Sonic]

hunton69 said:

It’s been empty for 30 years
I agree I want housing there my concern is those that won’t have a car in the affordable housing must walk 1.3 km to get a pint of milk
To qualify for social housing you have to have pitfall wage

'Affordable housing' and 'Social housing' are two different things. Affordable doesn't mean rented, it means for sale at affordable prices. The people buying these will almost certainly be able to afford cars.
If you're worrying about renters rather than homeowners walking past your house, I hope I've put your mind at rest.

[hunton69]

scsracing said:

1.3km, brutal!!

I’m referring to the social rented houses regs say should be no further than 600 meters away.

I don’t personally have a problem with a mother and her 3 kids with the dog walking 1.2 km to the shops it might prevent some of the obesity

[hunton69]

blueg33 said:

For any given number of bed spaces a social house is likely to be bigger than a market house as they have to meet NDSS

I’m referring to the 70% of the affordable rent being social housing which is mostly 1 bed flats.
The affordable statement would prefer 3 bed houses

[hunton69]

Super Sonic said:

'Affordable housing' and 'Social housing' are two different things. Affordable doesn't mean rented, it means for sale at affordable prices. The people buying these will almost certainly be able to afford cars.
If you're worrying about renters rather than homeowners walking past your house, I hope I've put your mind at rest.

70% have to be socially rented and most of those are 1 bed flats.
They won’t walk past my house I live up the lane nothing up there apart from farms and horses

[hunton69]

Collectingbrass said:

I have been involved in a similar situation, as the main contractor's management representative. Once work starts the developer will bring in private security and will seek to ensure their access rights. The developer will initially seek legal resolution to the access issues as they can't sell the houses without it, and that is where the other road users can best secure their rights and prevent damage to the private road.

Eventually the protest will become heated at which point the police will be called. In my case, the protestors refused a reasonable request to move on and were arrested for Breach of the Peace. They were prosecuted, found guilty and fined. The project was completed on time.

Thank you that all makes sense.

Must be 24 hour security

[Alltrack]

Fozziebear said:

stavers said:

Dingu said:

No wonder there is a lack of housing with such NIMBYs

More than enough houses. We don't need to build any more apart from the fact that it makes people lots of money so the developers give the back handers to the right people and it all carries on.

The biggest problem is that houses are seen as investments rather than places to live and people are prepared to pay stupid money for them based on that reason.

Coventry is currently having about 2500 houses built one green belt on the way out to Birmingham yet a newspaper report said that nearly 3000 houses are sat empty in Coventry. So why does it need another 2500 houses destroying conuntryside?

it does depend on what area these empty houses are in, I'd edge my bets they are in shoddy condition and in less than pleasant zones. its the same in most big city zones, I grew up in dagenham, id certainly not want to bring a family up in that area now, but the leafy green area outside I would.

It's this - the empty houses in Coventry are almost all in grim areas where no one if they had a choice would want to live.

[SpeckledJim]

hunton69 said:

Super Sonic said:

'Affordable housing' and 'Social housing' are two different things. Affordable doesn't mean rented, it means for sale at affordable prices. The people buying these will almost certainly be able to afford cars.
If you're worrying about renters rather than homeowners walking past your house, I hope I've put your mind at rest.

70% have to be socially rented and most of those are 1 bed flats.
They won’t walk past my house I live up the lane nothing up there apart from farms and horses

Hope you're to the west or the smell of the chip pans will mar your candlelight suppers.

[Collectingbrass]

hunton69 said:

Collectingbrass said:

I have been involved in a similar situation, as the main contractor's management representative. Once work starts the developer will bring in private security and will seek to ensure their access rights. The developer will initially seek legal resolution to the access issues as they can't sell the houses without it, and that is where the other road users can best secure their rights and prevent damage to the private road.

Eventually the protest will become heated at which point the police will be called. In my case, the protestors refused a reasonable request to move on and were arrested for Breach of the Peace. They were prosecuted, found guilty and fined. The project was completed on time.

Thank you that all makes sense.

Must be 24 hour security

Yes, it will be, with remote CCTV back to control rooms as well probably, this is something the industry is well used too. And the objectors would need to be prepared to keep the protest up 24 / 7 too with ultimately the risk of arrest and a criminal record. Of course it may be that the developer is not such a household name and less worried about either their brand or who they associate with. Either way there'll only be one winner and it wont be the protestors...

[skwdenyer]

Collectingbrass said:

hunton69 said:

My question: What happens if the residents park so badly on a regular basis that the lorries required to provide machines and material can not gain access.

I have been involved in a similar situation, as the main contractor's management representative. Once work starts the developer will bring in private security and will seek to ensure their access rights. The developer will initially seek legal resolution to the access issues as they can't sell the houses without it, and that is where the other road users can best secure their rights and prevent damage to the private road.

Eventually the protest will become heated at which point the police will be called. In my case, the protestors refused a reasonable request to move on and were arrested for Breach of the Peace. They were prosecuted, found guilty and fined. The project was completed on time.

The OP is in a strange position. I set out last night the issues that might allow the development to be prevented, despite gaining planning permission. That's the approach to take now if the OP wants to stop the development - ducks in a row, check the legals, take it from there.

The only other approach is a judicial review to have the grant of planning consent overturned. I'm not sure if that is worth doing right now.

It is also worth noting the site history is signifiant. There have been several planning applications refused over the years, for up to 50 units on this site. This isn't a flash-in-the-pan thing.

This is the road:



and here's the site access (the drive alongside the bungalow):



Here's the land the developers are going to have taken back by the Council to provide a footpath:



Yes, that means the house in the foreground losing their drive, for instance, as per this plan:



and here's the reverse view of the land to be "taken back":



The issue around maintenance of the private road seems to be a very real one; but it is one that's independent of the planning process. As I've said, the right research, and the right lawyering, could achieve something - even if that's just a better deal for the existing residents.

[hunton69]

The one loosing half the drive only bought last year they were never told about the development by their solicitor not sure why.
Again I would have thought the solicitor dealing with the sale would have pointed out that they only own half their front garden.

Then again they should have checked themselves.
The owners received by recorded delivery a letter on Friday that the council was taking back the land ( of course they could at any time) but the vote only took place Thursday evening so it must of been a done deal

[hunton69]

The council trimmed the tree 3 days earlier and repaid the entrance to the private road

[ben5575]

How is a thread created by somebody who cares, not cares reached 6 pages?

I'll admit this is top trolling...

I also have a lot of sympathy for Equus's opinion of the OP.

[untakenname]

skwdenyer said:

This is the road:


[/url]

If the residents started parking on the road both sides then wide vehicles likely wouldn't be able able to go down it (not sure if this would cause issues with rubbish collection).

Depending on how long the residents have had their gardens extended wouldn't the 8 year rule come in?

[hunton69]

ben5575 said:

How is a thread created by somebody who cares, not cares reached 6 pages?

I'll admit this is top trolling...

I also have a lot of sympathy for Equus's opinion of the OP.

That’s interesting opinion you obviously haven’t read all that I have written.

Cares or not cares that is the question that needs to be worked out

[hunton69]

untakenname said:

If the residents started parking on the road both sides then wide vehicles likely wouldn't be able able to go down it (not sure if this would cause issues with rubbish collection).

Depending on how long the residents have had their gardens extended wouldn't the 8 year rule come in?

Are you talking about adverse possession I thought that’s 10 years.
I know of two properties that receive letters every 7 years to cover that as they approached the council a couple of others are not so clear as they didn’t

[JNW1]

skwdenyer said:

The OP is in a strange position. I set out last night the issues that might allow the development to be prevented, despite gaining planning permission. That's the approach to take now if the OP wants to stop the development - ducks in a row, check the legals, take it from there.

The only other approach is a judicial review to have the grant of planning consent overturned. I'm not sure if that is worth doing right now.

It is also worth noting the site history is signifiant. There have been several planning applications refused over the years, for up to 50 units on this site. This isn't a flash-in-the-pan thing.

This is the road:



and here's the site access (the drive alongside the bungalow):



Here's the land the developers are going to have taken back by the Council to provide a footpath:



Yes, that means the house in the foreground losing their drive, for instance, as per this plan:



and here's the reverse view of the land to be "taken back":



The issue around maintenance of the private road seems to be a very real one; but it is one that's independent of the planning process. As I've said, the right research, and the right lawyering, could achieve something - even if that's just a better deal for the existing residents.

It sounds like the horse has already bolted with this but, skim reading the thread, is the intention to use the road that's being talked about as the long-term access to the new properties or is a separate access road going to be created for them as part of the new development?

Looking at those photos the existing road doesn't seem very wide and at a guess there's probably not much traffic using it at the moment? Therefore, it feels like a development of 35 properties would increase the level of vehicle movements very significantly if they all had to use that road.....