New development at the end of an unadopted road
Discussion
ben5575 said:
I was thinking that it might be on an existing combined system...
That's kind of my point. If the site is currently served by an unattenuated combined system, then a modern, attenuated SuDs system will very much reduce outfall.
Routes for sewers can be requisitioned, regardless.
ben5575 said:
Likewise the right of access might be for a specific (potentially non residential) use or a specific number of houses etc
On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely do you think it is that a developer has gone this far withouth looking into that? My money is on zero.hunton69 said:
How can the developer claim costs against a random car which parks like an idiot.
The same way the owner of said car can claim against the developer, if it is 'accidentally' swiped out of the way by a JCB?Your whole premise is based on the inaccurate belief that the police won't get involved even if the unadopted road is not a highway (which from the number of properties you've said it serves, it almost certainly is), but if it's genuinely a private road, then the developer can also take action against the landowner(s) for failing to maintain his unobstructed right of access, in the expectation that it's up to them to prevent trespass by unauthorised vehicles.
First rule of litigation: sue EVERYBODY and let God and the Lawyers sort it out...
Edited by Equus on Monday 27th March 23:03
Equus said:
The same way the owner of said car can claim against the developer, if it is 'accidentally' swiped out of the way by a JCB?
That would be criminal damage.Every house round here has cctv
Can I ask the delegated report which supported the planning was never put on the council web site along with the other documents is that correct.
Never knew what was in this report until the day the councillors voted
Equus said:
hunton69 said:
My understanding is the police will have no power if cars park badly
What is your understanding based on? As Smokey Mow has said, just because it's unadopted doesn't mean it's not a 'highway', and if it's a highway, Police have powers to enforce against obstruction just the same as on an adopted road.
If it's genuinely a private road, with no public right of access (bearing in mind that PROW can be established by default, if unrestricted access has been allowed over a period of time), then if the developer has a private right of access over it, they can seek a court injunction against anyone obstructing that right.
The first two will be subject to the wording , the last based on the use of the land being developed.
Also, there may not be any rights for services to run in the private road, so Op should check where they are going.
The remedy for residents is an injunction
The developer will probably have taken out an indemnity insurance policy so the lawyers will be paid by the insurers.
hunton69 said:
That would be criminal damage.
No it wouldn't. It would be a simple misjudgement, where someone had parked badly. You can hardly calculate it so that site traffic is completely blocked, whilst maintaining access for residents.'Sorry Guv, I thought I could squeeze it through'.
Equus said:
Your whole premise is based on the inaccurate belief that the police won't get involved even if the unadopted road is not a highway (which from the number of properties you've said it serves, it almost certainly is), but if it's genuinely a private road, then the developer can also take action against the landowner(s) for failing to maintain his unobstructed right of access, in the expectation that it's up to them to prevent trespass by unauthorised vehicles.
First rule of litigation: sue EVERYBODY and let God and the Lawyers sort it out...
Thats interesting as my office has a service road at the rear for deliveries it constantly gets blocked and the police do nothing.First rule of litigation: sue EVERYBODY and let God and the Lawyers sort it out...
Edited by Equus on Monday 27th March 23:03
The bin lorries think it’s there lucky day as they don’t empty the bins
Forgot the police were going to do someone for criminal damage when a frustrated shop
Keeper put 50 stickers over a car
blueg33 said:
You are not permitted to intensify the use of a private right of way whether granted in a transfer, by a deed or acquired by prescription.
Yes, I'm conscious of that, but the OP has told us that the land is a former poultry farm. They generate pretty intensive traffic.I'm also conscious that from his description of the road as serving 38 houses, the chances of it being a genuinely private right of way are slim to nil.
blueg33 said:
Not necessarily. You are not permitted to intensify the use of a private right of way whether granted in a transfer, by a deed or acquired by prescription.
The first two will be subject to the wording , the last based on the use of the land being developed.
Also, there may not be any rights for services to run in the private road, so Op should check where they are going.
The remedy for residents is an injunction
The developer will probably have taken out an indemnity insurance policy so the lawyers will be paid by the insurers.
I read somewhere in all the documents that the largest lorry they would be using is no bigger than a bin lorry which I found interesting.The first two will be subject to the wording , the last based on the use of the land being developed.
Also, there may not be any rights for services to run in the private road, so Op should check where they are going.
The remedy for residents is an injunction
The developer will probably have taken out an indemnity insurance policy so the lawyers will be paid by the insurers.
I guess may be wrong but that’s because bin
Lorries have had a right of way for many years
Equus said:
Yes, I'm conscious of that, but the OP has told us that the land is a former poultry farm. They generate pretty intensive traffic.
I'm also conscious that from his description of the road as serving 38 houses, the chances of it being a genuinely private right of way are slim to nil.
It was a family run chicken processing plant.I'm also conscious that from his description of the road as serving 38 houses, the chances of it being a genuinely private right of way are slim to nil.
Site is 3.5 acres so not very big
Dingu said:
No wonder there is a lack of housing with such NIMBYs
I’m only against the flats as it doesn’t comply with CP12 CP4 was weird as there isn’t any public transport or shops within 1.2 kilometres.
Secondly the road doesn’t have a footpath and never will.
I’m
Not against development there it’s the mix and numbers
hunton69 said:
Thats interesting as my office has a service road at the rear for deliveries it constantly gets blocked and the police do nothing.
A service road is likely to be a genuinely private right of access.I don't think you're getting the difference between a private road that is simply an unadopted highway and a genuinely private right of access.
A Highway is an area of land which the public at large have the absolute right to use to 'Pass and Repass without let or hindrance'. Any area of land where this right exists therefore have equal status irrespective of the use made of it or its appearance.
Blueg33's point about intensification of use is relevant, here: unless you can prove that the public at large have do not have (and have not acquired by prescription) an absolute right to use the road (ie. that you can demonstrate that the public have only been allowed to used the road under certain conditions and limitations), then it's a highway... just not an adopted one.
From HERE
"A private road is a highway unless it is gated and is truly a private piece of land owned by one or more parties. More often these private roads are simply unadopted roads. There are estimated to be over 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales making up over 4,000 miles of road. They are not unusual. The Highways Act 1980, describes a private road (or ‘unadopted’ road) is any highway that’s not maintained at public expense. It is still a highway."
hunton69 said:
I’m only against the flats as it doesn’t comply with CP12
CP12, I assume, being a Local Planning Policy?Guess what: you're not a Planning Authority, so you don't have the power to judge whether Local Planning Policies should be applied.
If you and your hundreds of fellow NIMBYs genuinely thought proper process had not been followed in reaching the Planning decision, you should have sought Judicial Review.
Equus said:
CP12, I assume, being a Local Planning Policy?
Guess what: you're not a Planning Authority, so you don't have the power to judge whether Local Planning Policies should be applied.
If you and your hundreds of fellow NIMBYs genuinely thought proper process had not been followed in reaching the Planning decision, you should have sought Judicial Review.
A councillor questioned CP12 the answer from planning officer was anything is better than the current run downs sheds.Guess what: you're not a Planning Authority, so you don't have the power to judge whether Local Planning Policies should be applied.
If you and your hundreds of fellow NIMBYs genuinely thought proper process had not been followed in reaching the Planning decision, you should have sought Judicial Review.
What’s the point of CP12 if that’s the answer as most brownfield sites are just that
hunton69 said:
A councillor questioned CP12 the answer from planning officer was anything is better than the current run downs sheds.
What’s the point of CP12 if that’s the answer as most brownfield sites are just that
What’s the point of CP12 if that’s the answer as most brownfield sites are just that
hunton69 said:
The application had to comply with CP12
Why would I mention it?
I know that I'm wasting my time, here, because your biggoted, NIMBY little mind is already made up. However, since you ask the question:Why would I mention it?
As I said, I assume CP12 is a policy within the Local Plan.
None of us will know what CP12 says, unless you tell us the name of the Planning Authority: each Authority's Local Plan is different.
However; a fundamental and basic legal principle of the UK Planning system is that the Local Plan should be a starting point for any Planning decision. That doesn't mean that you have to adhere to it without question. It means that it should guide decisions unless other material considerations outweigh it.
It is obvious from what you've said that the application went to Committee, where elected Members weighed the material considerations and decided that, in this case, CP12 (whatever it is... I'm guessing a policy against redevelopment of brownfield sites in Greenbelt?) was outweighed by other benefits of the development. That is their job, their prerogative, and they are specifically empowered, in law, to make that judgement.
YOU ARE NOT
Equus said:
I know that I'm wasting my time, here, because your biggoted, NIMBY little mind is already made up. However, since you ask the question:
As I said, I assume CP12 is a policy within the Local Plan.
None of us will know what CP12 says, unless you tell us the name of the Planning Authority: each Authority's Local Plan is different.
However; a fundamental and basic legal principle of the UK Planning system is that the Local Plan should be a starting point for any Planning decision. That doesn't mean that you have to adhere to it without question. It means that it should guide decisions unless other material considerations outweigh it.
It is obvious froim what you've said that the application went to Committee, where elected Members weighed the material considerations and decided that, in this case, CP12 (whatever it is... I'm guessing a policy against redevelopment of brownfield sites in Greenbelt?) was outweighed by other benefits of the development. That is their job, their prerogative, and they are specifically empowered, in law, to make that judgement.
YOU ARE NOT
Nice thanks for the compliment.As I said, I assume CP12 is a policy within the Local Plan.
None of us will know what CP12 says, unless you tell us the name of the Planning Authority: each Authority's Local Plan is different.
However; a fundamental and basic legal principle of the UK Planning system is that the Local Plan should be a starting point for any Planning decision. That doesn't mean that you have to adhere to it without question. It means that it should guide decisions unless other material considerations outweigh it.
It is obvious froim what you've said that the application went to Committee, where elected Members weighed the material considerations and decided that, in this case, CP12 (whatever it is... I'm guessing a policy against redevelopment of brownfield sites in Greenbelt?) was outweighed by other benefits of the development. That is their job, their prerogative, and they are specifically empowered, in law, to make that judgement.
YOU ARE NOT
They have the power but they don’t always win
.
I beat them at appeal over a 330 Sq meter outbuilding which they refused so I must know something but I don’t profess to be an expert such as yourself.
Love to read your appeals that you have been involved in I’m guessing you won them all.
hunton69 said:
They have the power but they don’t always win
Win?Planning Committees don't 'win' or 'lose': they merely make decisions.
The've made one here that you don't like. Frankly - and unless, as I suggested ealier, you think you stand a chance at 'appealing' that decision using the Judicial Review process - that's just tough. Learn to live with it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff