New development at the end of an unadopted road

[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

[hunton69]

Collectingbrass said:

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...

They’re not protestors they won’t block the road.
It might be impossible to get a lorry through.
No idea how they can get arrested.

[hunton69]

SpeckledJim said:

A non-Nimby sort of person, with a non-totally-fking-selfish view of the world. That sort of person.

Someone objected to your house being built, you know. You're glad that they were rightly ignored, because otherwise you'd be bloody chilly tonight.

Difficult that one mine was the first house built in 1926 the private road wasn’t built and the owner of my house owned the land down to the main road and therefore no one could complain.
When he sold the land the houses on my side (opposite the private road) had to be built to a certain minimum £600 per house with brick how times have changed

I don’t have a problem with development I have a problem with over development within a small space.
My house sits in 4 acres I do hope you support my future development

Edited by hunton69 on Tuesday 28th March 16:50

[hunton69]

gt_12345 said:

You didn't answer my question.

Do you think the addition of these houses will improve or worsen the OP's quality of life?

It can't be selfish as the OP isn't asking the question. I am.

Your question was to difficult

[hunton69]

JackJarvis said:

Did the OP really suggest he's concerned about affordable housing occupants having to walk to the shops?

Come on, just admit you're absolutely fuming at the prospect of poor people living next to you.

This is textbook NIMBY behaviour.

The developers planning statement admits the amenities are three times further away than the guidelines say they should.
I had no idea what the guidelines were until I read that.
Why have guidelines.

I live 250 meters away up the lane other than walking a dog there is no reason to go that way so to answer you I’m not fuming.

My business relies on people without cars

[hunton69]

The new owners of those properties are going to ruin my view I’m gutted.

[hunton69]

SpeckledJim said:

Nobody is arguing that the road should be destroyed. If the road needs improving, then it should be improved. I'm arguing that if you give the locals any real say in whether stuff gets built, then nothing will get built. Listen to Alf Garnett above. Would you hand him ANY influence over the lovely house you live in???

And so he gets his way and nothing is built

So what is the point asking for neighbours comments they all get ignored until they find one in favour.

Pointless

[hunton69]

Grumps. said:

All those owners of the new houses that will be built, will probably be gutted their view is going to be spoilt by his house.

Ha ha

I previously said I’m 250 meters away up the lane do you believe that there going to build on my neighbours 26 acres he will be over the moon he will be able to buy a second third and fourth GT2

[hunton69]

RumbleOfThunder said:

It doesn't affect him. But it does a little bit because the planning was not what he expected, but it also doesn't because it would push up the value of his own land, but on the other hand it it does because he has empathy for all the local residents. He is a good Samaritan helping out the little guy, and he "never gives up". But it doesn't effect him either so who knows.

Thank you. You understand me.

We are a nice bunch in the lane as an example my neighbour (he’s on here) who has paddocks and over 20 acres put up a Ukrainian family in his gate house.

They looked after them very well without any publicity as they didn’t want any praise

[hunton69]

Super Sonic said:

Thought you said it won't affect you?

It doesn’t I was taking the p……

[hunton69]

roscopervis said:

It never fails to depress me how poor the understanding is of the basics of the planning system is by the general public in this country and how some incorrect knowledge on the topic breeds a personal ideology fed from ropey political views. To balance, the planning system itself is twisted in knots under the weight of trying to do what’s right against a massive bureaucracy and political system filled with people who don’t know what they’re doing.

I get what you’re saying however my own personal experience where a builder who worked for local authorities built 7 outbuildings on his land in 2006/7 under PD. 3 enforcement cases were opened and closed saying it’s PD.
He gets repossessed in 2008 we buy in 2010.
Council does say that some of the buildings may not be PD during the sale.
Just before the 4 years is up they serve me a notice to knock them all down saying they’re not in the curtilage and some not incidental.

It was bloody obvious that some weren’t as I’m not sure that a dog kennel at 54 sq meters would be

In 2010 i nought about planning not alot has changed

[hunton69]

skwdenyer said:

The OP and his neighbours have only two choices:

(1) judicial review of the planning decision (big money, not going to happen); or

(2) the access road stuff I’ve discussed.

1. 2 requires some determination to (a) get all the info together, including if necessary some historical documentation, and (b) understand / find a lawyer who understands the law & precedent and - importantly - how to use it to gain an advantage / result.

So that means #2 is the only game in town. Parking mayhem isn’t going to achieve anything.

Equus has correctly said that it is likely the developers have got their ducks in a row. But my experience is that this isn’t always the case, because people see what they want to see (or don’t look too hard in case they might not like what they find).

If the OP really wants to stop this, #2 is where I’d invest my time.

Thanks again I will pass the information on.

I actually want the plot developed something that fits in with the surrounding area

[hunton69]

blueg33 said:

I have been developing all sorts of sites for 30 plus years, anything from new homes of greenfield through high rise city centre to stately homes conversions, schools and hospitals.

They all have their Nimbys, and this thread shows that nimby attitude and complete lack of self awareness very clearly. It’s also eye opening in nonsense value, immigration my arse

If a development is in policy it should be allowed if it’s out of policy by all means fight it, but on policy grounds.

Claims of backhanders are total rubbish. It doesn’t happen. If as some say they have witnessed it, they could prove it by posting links to the prosecution as obviously they would have reported it, and it’s a very serious matter.

Are you saying that there has never been a brown envelope involved in a planning decision.
If you are you really need to get out more.

I’m sure it’s rare but it will of happened.

Your comment about quote the court case that’s almost impossible as those involved aren’t going to come clean.
To those that say they have been offered again impossible to prove.

How many industries rely on a brown envelope hotels is one that stands out.
The second highest earner works very close to the reception

[hunton69]

Equus said:

You can't submit a Planning Application for something that is Permitted Development: the LPA should decline to determine it (to do so would be ultra vires for them).

Conversely, if you submit an application for a Certificate of Lawfuiness on something that is PD, it won't matter a flying fig whether your neighbour objects: PD is PD, and if the LPA assess it as such, they MUST issue a Certificate of Lawfulness - they have no other alternative.

What sort of numpty would give their neighbour an opportunity to object when they don't have to, anyway?

Edited to add:

Edited by Equus on Thursday 30th March 08:43

So he applied for a certificate of lawfulness for a PD building and told the neighbour what he was doing I guess out of politeness

He didn’t have an obligation to tell neighbour and the neighbours are never consulted with application for a certificate of lawfulness.

I hope I’ve got that correct

[hunton69]

Thank you to the recent replies.
I know it makes no difference but as it’s a dead end to no where apart from residents and their friends no one else uses it.

No idea why but the developer originally said in their planning statement that no lorries bigger than a dust cart would be used that’s now been removed. I guess because they ain’t going to get the muck out and machines in.

As I have said it doesn’t directly effect me it effects the 37 that live in the road and the other 5 in the lane.