New development at the end of an unadopted road

[hunton69]

Equus said:

Yes, absolutely.

But if you don't want a development to happen on specific Planning grounds, the right and proper thing to do is to challenge it on those grounds at the Planning stage.

Our hero has already made abundantly clear that he has no problem with the basic principle of development: it's non-compliance with Local Plan Policy CP12 that his knickers are all twisted up about (he says).

Trying to block the development by any means necessary, by trying to find spurious and vexatious issues that are nothing to do with the matters you are allegedly concerned with, is NIMBYism pure and simple, and I'm sure that the OP will protest that he is no such animal (athough he doth protest too much, if you ask me...).

Thank you skydenyer at least you did some research wasn’t that difficult.

Yep meeting only last Thursday I did ask why wasn’t the delegated report not out on all web site seems strange.

The residents in that road took upon themselves to oppose the site and thought they had won when the parish council opposed it I told them otherwise.
I invited them to a meeting to put a plan together but they chose not to.

CP12 yes but more about CP4 location of affordable housing due to nothing local as I have said I sought advice about limited in filing within the village as there is a 35 meter gap between me and neighbour and half my land is in secondary centre planning should be possible but he was concerned about this location being to far from the local amenities.
(He’s one at appeal over a site that wasn’t in a village)

I’m guessing that this won’t be s factor now

[hunton69]

CheesecakeRunner said:

So you’re saying five houses in your lane stole land to extend their gardens, and illegally blocked a public footpath? And now they’re pissed off that the legal owner is taking it back?

No
Wow people jump to conclusions.
The council did not maintain the footpath so the residents wrote to the council about it the council agreed that they could use the land as they wanted.
Every 7 years the council writes to the resident reminding them that it’s still council the reason is so the resident doesn’t blame the land as adverse possession.

What’s interesting is the development needed a second reason for the planning and used this new path as the reason claiming it’s enhancing the area no one wants the path
I wonder if the path was already there (council had maintained it) they wouldn’t have the second reason

[hunton69]

andburg said:

my 2p

I haven't read anywhere that OP has been able to confirm the status of the road so I'd start there.
Is the road private?
is the a right of way or easement over it and what conditions are attached?

if it is private and has no RoW to access residential property, identify the owner and speak to them.

You'd imagine planning have already done these checks. I'd also speak to the planning officer and the developer to suggest the road is handed over and adopted by the council though they will probably avoid this like the plague as it sounds like its in a state of disrepair anyway.

As I’ve said I don’t live in the road and those that do had no idea what they needed to do apart from write a 2,000 word objection of waffle.
Believe it or not this development helps me to develop my land I live 300 meters away up the lane very few drive that way as the main road is only 80meters away
Funding the land owner is now an obvious thing to do

[hunton69]

Fozziebear said:

Yep, no residential builds ever. I love the cycle of "we need more houses for locals" then a development arrives in keeping with the area and you get the "they are to expensive for us to buy". We have just had 500 new builds near us, loads of complaints etc, all sold within 8 months, most not even half built,

Agree however those that move here generally come from London as this area is cheaper

[hunton69]

SpeckledJim said:

So you’re going to take the moral high ground by arranging a blockade.

I expect you’d be outraged if one morning you find your blockade upside down in your duck pond.

Where did I say that. I said the residents are thinking that way

[hunton69]

carl_w said:

Presumably the residents support 9 as that is the maximum that can be built without having to provide a %age as affordable housing?

The plot could could take 12 which I would support and but the max is 9 without affordable housing.
The site by its location suits a mews with private gates as this private road is a dead end.
The location fails for affordable housing.
No footpath in the private road no buses within 1.2 km or shops.
This is what I have been told by planners who I have instructed over my property.
One head of Bedford planning then a building inspectorate and the other one that got an inspectorate to disagree about the location of a property that wasn’t in the village and now is.

[hunton69]

smokey mow said:

So it’s not privately owned then?

IMO it does sound like there is very little grounds to contest or obstruct access.

Sorry I haven’t made it clear.
This private road is 80 meters up a lane which is off a main road.
The lane had the footpath that wasn’t maintained and it’s those houses that were allowed it’s in writing to use that land as there own as the council couldn’t be bothered to maintain it.
There are only 28 houses in the lane.
The private road is on the right which is in a poor state and also has no footpath and never will.

[hunton69]

Equus said:

Actually, it's mainly 'cos I'm a nasty bd.

I have never pretended to be nice.

I have noticed but at the same time value your experience and I thank you for that.
I’ve learnt over the years that planning is nothing like maths 2 plus2 in planning can add up to 3,4 5 or 6 it works to guidelines however is interpreted in various ways.

I’m not sure if you recall 11 years ago I had to demolish 7 outbuildings that the previous owner put up despite 3 enforcements every time saying there PD that was until he went skint and we bought the property then they changed there mind

[hunton69]

SpeckledJim said:

Your aim was what?

What can the developer do should the residents park badly.
They do it now.
As it’s a sharp right turn of the lane occasionally locals prevent lorries getting into the road.
I’ve had to wait in the lane for lorries to unload and pallet the delivery up to their houses.

I

[hunton69]

eccles said:

Yeah, we can't have poor people in flats living in our leafy bit of the country!

Kings Langley is full of flats thats the majority of new builds. TRDC have said they have a shortage of 3 bedroom houses

[hunton69]

alfabeat said:

35 new houses sounds much more appealing to me than a chicken processing plant as a neighbour

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

[hunton69]

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.

[hunton69]

CraigyMc said:

I recon you're nice.

The self-contradiction of OP several times on this thread is not just perplexing. The thread should be named "Room 12A".

I’m interested in what’s confusing

[hunton69]

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

[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

[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