New development at the end of an unadopted road

[Grumps.]

blueg33 said:

Grumps. said:

blueg33 said:

Grumps. said:

Backhanders doesn't always involve the passing of money. It's an expression that used that can encompass all sorts of 'gifts'.

Same rules apply. Please provide your evidence. Bribery act covers more than cash, misconduct in a public office covers more than cash.

Please let us know what happened and what you did to report it.

What evidence would you like? Names?

As above - the court reports.

or even

A bit about the local authority involved a link to the planning application so we can compare the proposal with policy to see whether it would have been a good planning prospect or whether the decision is contrary to published policy. Even the application number or address and year would be enough. The application and policy are all public domain.

I can also then see the minutes of the committee meeting and judge whether any member acted unusually

These are simple things to provide, otherwise i am afraid that your assertions have no demonstrable merit and fall into the category of uninformed naïve bks

Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 29th March 08:48

This was thirty plus years ago and there are no documents or links etc etc for you.

Believe what you like, this happened and still does.

[blueg33]

I can access planning docs from 30 years ago

Lease let me have the details.

[pubrunner]

WrekinCrew said:

I suggest you read the "Rotten Boroughs" section of Private Eye. Every issue carries at least one expose of dodgy planning decisions and local government corruption.

Corruption is very difficult to prove, without having access to sensitive financial information.

For my part, I have witnessed incompetence and favouritism on a wide scale by my local county planning department.

A few years ago, my local county authority decided to have a 'public' housing survey, to assess whether housing future housing targets should be 'low', 'moderate' or 'high'. The survey was on a webpage within the council's own website, so residents only found out about it by chance. The county has a population of about 350,000, but there were fewer than 500 responses.

The council decided that having reviewed the results, a 'high' housing target was most appropriate. The CPRE asked to see a detailed breakdown of the votes via FOI; it was found that 45% (!) of the votes were from Agents - on behalf of landowners. One agent alone, made 75 responses; another made 25 responses - all identical. It was found that genuine residents (who had all submitted single responses) were all for low housing growth, but this was ignored by the council, who had made a 'sham' attempt at demonstrating the value of following a democratic process.

Accordingly, a high housing target has been set, but this can create further problems down the line. What is happening, is that permissions are being granted, but the houses aren't being delivered. The developers know, that if houses aren't delivered, it puts pressure on authorities to grant planning permission on yet more sites. Landowners know that their land is worth much more if they can get planning permission and planning permission is frequently granted to greenfields, simply because the council is desperate to meet their own (high) housing targets. Why build houses, when delaying can help get planning on increasing amounts of land ? (I think they call it land banking).

A few years ago, a planning application was submitted close to where I live; yes, I was one of those nimbys, who objected; we looked (in detail) at the application and found plenty of reasons to make sound objections.

The proposed development was an extension of an existing cul-de-sac - through a 'ransom strip' of land which was owned by a different landowner. We found that the council's own Highways department's documentation states that "a cul-de-sac must not be more than 100 metres long"; but the cul-de-sac was already 110m long and we found that the proposed development would make it 250m long.

The council's response was that "our Highways department have no objections" - effectively, they were prepared to ignore their own rules - which begs the question, on what basis had those rules been created ?

Another issue, was that of the need for a Heritage Statement (HS) to be prepared; one was delivered that in the words of an independent archaeologist, was "highly partial". On the front of the HS, the author had cited CiFA credentials to which he was not entitled - take note, giving false post-nominals is considered to be a criminal offence (where investigated).

The Council simply stated that "as far as we are concerned, the HS meets the required standards and the issue of accreditation, is a matter for the CiFA". We complained to the CiFA and it was found that a breach of their by-laws had occurred - but the council still said the document was fine. Hard to believe, but on the county's planning portal, the HS can still be seen - complete with the false accreditation. (It's worth noting, that CiFA membership is formally assessed and is competence based). When things like this occur, who stands to benefit ?

{As an aside, we found through a simple internet search, that the author of the HS had previously worked for the council and during that time, had submitted Heritage 'guidance' - on multiple successful housing applications - large scale and big money. All of these using the false accreditation; who stands to benefit when things like this happen ? How can anyone have faith as to the integrity of processes such as these ?}

The housing application was rejected (on heritage grounds), but we knew it would go to appeal. At the Hearing, the objectors sat between the county planning officials and the Appellant. Towards the end of the hearing, we raised the point, that the application was 'incomplete'; this caused great agitation - we told the Planning Inspector, that an application for development of the 'ransom strip' should have been submitted - but there was no evidence of this.

This caused the Planning Inspector to be 'cheesed off' and ultimately, the appeal was rejected.

Essentially, a group of 'nimbys' identified that the Agent hadn't submitted a 'complete' application; furthermore, the council's own housing department hadn't noticed either - it's their job to check such things in detail, but they hadn't.

The whole matter stank of incompetence - to a level that most of us couldn't get away with in our own jobs. If we hadn't objected, the (multi-million pound) housing application would have been waved through - which I guess was the intention in the first place.

Edited by pubrunner on Wednesday 29th March 15:11

[timetex]

Alltrack said:

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.

In fairness, that sums up pretty much all of Coventry.

[skwdenyer]

timetex said:

Alltrack said:

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.

In fairness, that sums up pretty much all of Coventry.

That sounds like a job for, I don't know, some form of Government to step in and deal with the area. This is not a new concept - regeneration has been happening for a very long time.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

We have a private school at the back of our estate. They have recently tried to get an all weather sports pitch on green belt right next to houses and and convert a house to school use against local planning policy.

They ( in my view ) seem to have somewhat charmed planning status. We objected and both were declined.

I did an foi request for all correspondence between the council and school and all related council internal docs.

To be frank I was heartened that the council could see exactly what the school was trying to do. One infra sept email actually said they seem to think we are daft and won’t see what they are upto. They went up in my estimations.

They also change the argument on each application. Either school doing so well it needs x , or for green belt skiing so badly it is a commercial imperative. We point this out in objections and against to be fair the council in their internal papers do also.

At the other end of the spectrum I have a pd application in and a neighbour has objected that I have. It put in a full planning application so they can object! Not only that but I told them I was doing it and the objection was sent before it was submitted on the basis “ I think a pd application will soon be made “.

[blueg33]

timetex said:

Alltrack said:

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.

In fairness, that sums up pretty much all of Coventry.

Not particular to Coventry. Lots of places have crap old stock.

[SpeckledJim]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

We have a private school at the back of our estate. They have recently tried to get an all weather sports pitch on green belt right next to houses and and convert a house to school use against local planning policy.

They ( in my view ) seem to have somewhat charmed planning status. We objected and both were declined.

I did an foi request for all correspondence between the council and school and all related council internal docs.

To be frank I was heartened that the council could see exactly what the school was trying to do. One infra sept email actually said they seem to think we are daft and won’t see what they are upto. They went up in my estimations.

They also change the argument on each application. Either school doing so well it needs x , or for green belt skiing so badly it is a commercial imperative. We point this out in objections and against to be fair the council in their internal papers do also.

At the other end of the spectrum I have a pd application in and a neighbour has objected that I have. It put in a full planning application so they can object! Not only that but I told them I was doing it and the objection was sent before it was submitted on the basis “ I think a pd application will soon be made “.

Let me guess. Your objection to school kids playing sport on good facilities in their school is reasonable but your neighbour’s objection to your building plans is not?

[Equus]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

At the other end of the spectrum I have a pd application in and a neighbour has objected that I have. It put in a full planning application so they can object! Not only that but I told them I was doing it and the objection was sent before it was submitted on the basis “ I think a pd application will soon be made “.

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:

I can't comment on conversion of a house to school use, without knowing your LPA's policy (against loss of dwellings, I presume?), but if I were the Planner dealing with it, I wouldn't be too concerned about an all-weather sports pitch in Greenbelt: the NPPF specifically states that "appropriate facilities (in connection with existing use of land) for outdoor sport..." are one of the allowable exceptions for development in Greenbelt.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 30th March 08:43

[Alltrack]

blueg33 said:

timetex said:

Alltrack said:

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.

In fairness, that sums up pretty much all of Coventry.

Not particular to Coventry. Lots of places have crap old stock.

In Coventry , its mostly the north of the city away from the universities.
The current expansions at King's Hill (A46) and Eastern Green (A45) may have been based on population projections from a over a decade ago.

[blueg33]

Alltrack said:

blueg33 said:

timetex said:

Alltrack said:

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.

In fairness, that sums up pretty much all of Coventry.

Not particular to Coventry. Lots of places have crap old stock.

In Coventry , its mostly the north of the city away from the universities.
The current expansions at King's Hill (A46) and Eastern Green (A45) may have been based on population projections from a over a decade ago.

I spent the first 18 years of my life in Eastern Green, the house I was born in was built in 1963 on fields that my Dad used to play on as a kid, the new homes next to the Windmill hotel are going up on fields I used to play on as a kid - plus ca change.

Agreed the crap stock is to the north, Foleshill Road and out to the M6 etc, but many areas are still ok.

As for population projections, the ones from 10 years ago are well out of date, we need more homes than they suggested and the large developments have been identified in the local plans for a while.

[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

[havoc]

blueg33 said:

Agreed the crap stock is to the north, Foleshill Road and out to the M6 etc, but many areas are still ok.

Lived in north Cov for several years post university and then when I moved in with my (now) missus.

Yes there are utterly st areas that you wouldn't want to go near, but there are other areas where the worst you'll get is those annoying bikes buzzing around late into the evening or a teenage lad playing music full blast. The only problem we had was when the skip on the driveway out the back of the house got raided for scrap metal within hours of chucking stuff in it.

Just because people don't have a lot of money, doesn't mean they're not decent. The OP's post is frankly an example of how the 'haves' can be just as obnoxious as the 'have nots', only with less of an excuse...

[daveinhampshire]

Two things.

1.. You won't stop this development, there's to much money in it. Speak to them and see if you can get something out of it, maybe the unadopted road being brought up to adoption standard.

2. Parking. Whilst they no doubt have a bonafide right of access to the property that do not have the right to leave the road littered with their CV vehicles which they no doubt will. You have a right to enforce parking on land you own. This week continue to be an issue after the development once it's completed as many estates ban sign written vans or at least don't want to say them themselves..

[skwdenyer]

daveinhampshire said:

Two things.

1.. You won't stop this development, there's to much money in it. Speak to them and see if you can get something out of it, maybe the unadopted road being brought up to adoption standard.

2. Parking. Whilst they no doubt have a bonafide right of access to the property that do not have the right to leave the road littered with their CV vehicles which they no doubt will. You have a right to enforce parking on land you own. This week continue to be an issue after the development once it's completed as many estates ban sign written vans or at least don't want to say them themselves..

As per my earlier posts, it may not be the case that there is a bonafide right of access to 36 additional properties.

As regards ownership of the private road, the OP needs to establish who owns it. It does not appear to be registered. It may be that it belongs to all the properties in common. It may not.

[Equus]

skwdenyer said:

As per my earlier posts, it may not be the case that there is a bonafide right of access to 36 additional properties.

But the overwhelming likelihood from what we've been told is that there is: we've been told nothing that suggests that this isn't a 'highway', with unrestricted rights of public access by prescription.

[skwdenyer]

Equus said:

skwdenyer said:

As per my earlier posts, it may not be the case that there is a bonafide right of access to 36 additional properties.

But the overwhelming likelihood from what we've been told is that there is: we've been told nothing that suggests that this isn't a 'highway', with unrestricted rights of public access by prescription.

I don't disagree. And I'm certainly not trying to get the OP's hopes up. I'm merely observing that, from what's been put here, the only vector (other than negotiation) for getting a better outcome / a stop to the development seems to be around the road.

As regards prescription specifically, don't the rights exercised during the prescription period limit the extent of the rights claimable by the developer? Isn't Dewan and ors v Lewis relevant here? Obviously the developers may in turn rely upon the bungalow, but that I think has separate frontage, so it is the track to the fowl farm that's relevant as far as the new development is concerned.

Even if there is a right by prescription for residential purposes, is that extendable from 1 house to 37? It seems to me the courts are catching up with the huge intensification problem caused by sites like this. So cases such as McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson seem to be relevant, don't you think? McAdams was about 2 houses and found against the developer; here we're talking about 37!

But to reiterate, all I'm saying is (a) there's a potential window of action (however small); and (b) everything turns on the actual detail here (which the OP doesn't seem to have). What's in the conveyances of the houses on that road? Who owns the road? And so on. I make no pretence of being an expert in these areas (I have great lawyers for when I need property experts); but I'm very alive to the issues, and believe (rightly or wrongly) that the key issue is establishing all of the facts (written, implied, whatever) before deciding what to do next.

What I do know is that time is of the essence here; as the Brighton (IIRC) right to light case showed, early action is important to assert a potential claim, so the developers are on-notice. Later it might be necessary to apply for injunctive relief. So getting to the nub of the true facts seems to me critical.

[Equus]

skwdenyer said:

As regards prescription specifically, don't the rights exercised during the prescription period limit the extent of the rights claimable by the developer?

Yes, but it comes back to the legal definition of a highway: the ability of members of the public to pass and repass without let (ie. nobody giving them specific permission) or hinderance (ie. attempting to prevent them).

At risk of becoming tedious by repetition, there is nothing in what the OP has told us to believe that either has ever occurred. It is therefore almost certainly a highway (albeit unadopted), with unlimited rights of access by all.

McAdams Homes Ltd. vs. Robinson was about intensification of a private easement: not the same thing at all.

[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.