New development at the end of an unadopted road

[ClaphamGT3]

This thread reminds me why our family business doesnt do resi development anymore.

[Fozziebear]

ClaphamGT3 said:

This thread reminds me why our family business doesnt do resi development anymore.

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,

[andburg]

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.

[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

[Equus]

hunton69 said:

I did ask why wasn’t the delegated report not out on all web site seems strange

Not strange at all.

The Officer Report is typically not finalised until just before the decision is issued (for a delegated decision) or just before the Committee Meeting (for an application that goes to committee). Some Authorities put it online as soon as it is available (before the Committee meeting), but that's by no means universal.

For those that don't, once the decision is taken, it will be passed to the admin team to upload onto the Council's portal, but since it is no longer a 'live' application by then, it no longer has any urgency and uploading the documents on incoming and live applications will take precedence. So long as the Decision Notice itself is made available within a reasonable timeframe, it's no big deal... it will be uploaded when they get round to it.

[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

[Fozziebear]

hunton69 said:

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

And that's an issue? I never understand the issue, about 90% of the new builds that are being built near me are being purchased by outsiders, the rest are new home owners from the town, I see no issue with that,

[Equus]

hunton69 said:

Funding the land owner is now an obvious thing to do

Before you waste time doing that, consider whether access by the public to the road has been recently and routinely restricted by the landowner.

The fact that you don't even know the landowner says not...

Unless, for example, the owner of the road has closed it to all traffic except residents on a regular basis, the chances are that the public will have acquired by prescription the 'absolute right to pass and repass without hindrance' that I mentioned above. That means it's a highway, pure and simple (albeit an unadopted one), and that word 'absolute' means that any attempt to limit its use, even if it involves intensification, will fail.

[Equus]

hunton69 said:

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

Any yet you're the one on the internet forum desperatley seeking possible obstacles to the development...

[smokey mow]

hunton69 said:

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.

You’ve told us it’s an unadopted road so why would they maintain it any part of it?

hunton69 said:

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.

So it’s not privately owned then?

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

[355spider]

Tribal Chestnut said:

Equus said:

I know that I'm wasting my time, here, because your biggoted, NIMBY little mind is already made up.

Classy.

Edited quote length by Tribal Chestnut on Tuesday 28th March 07:39

Edited by Tribal Chestnut on Tuesday 28th March 07:39

Quite.

I’ll not dispute his contribution to the forum is invaluable at times, however he doesn’t come across particularly pleasant at times, maybe down to the fact he comes across opposition to development on a frequent basis and therefore patience wears thin.

[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.

[DanL]

355spider said:

Tribal Chestnut said:

Equus said:

I know that I'm wasting my time, here, because your biggoted, NIMBY little mind is already made up.

Classy.

Quite.

I’ll not dispute his contribution to the forum is invaluable at times, however he doesn’t come across particularly pleasant at times, maybe down to the fact he comes across opposition to development on a frequent basis and therefore patience wears thin.

In fairness, the opening post set quite a combative tone…

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.
The police have no powers what are the options for construction company

I.e. we can all park like tts and no one can do anything about it, right? Climate protestors obstructing roads don’t get much love, and I’m struggling to see how this is much different…

[Equus]

355spider said:

I’ll not dispute his contribution to the forum is invaluable at times, however he doesn’t come across particularly pleasant at times, maybe down to the fact he comes across opposition to development on a frequent basis and therefore patience wears thin.

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

I have never pretended to be nice.

[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.

[SpeckledJim]

hunton69 said:

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

So when you arrived with this:

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.

Your aim was what?

[K4sper]

Never met a NIMBY that didn't say "I don't mind development per se, it's just this particular development I object to

[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