New development at the end of an unadopted road

[hunton69]

An old chicken farm at the end of an unadopted road has just been approved for 35 properties a mix of flats and houses this a brownfield site with in the green belt.
The residents obviously objected but as usual the views were ignored.
Some believe a development of 9 detached houses would have been more appropriate although others wanted nothing which was never an option.
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

[hunton69]

Each house has a responsibility from their boundary to the middle of the road and they have to maintain the road.
Obviously there is a right of way as the chicken farm when it was operating had workers and deliveries.
My understanding is the police will have no power if cars park badly

[hunton69]

The private road is off the lane I live in.
There are 38 houses in the unadopted road and they’re not happy.
Plus 5 in my lane as they are taking land of those houses to reinstate a foot path that was neglected 30 years ago and those house holders extended their gardens

[hunton69]

Equus said:

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.

This is the reason I am asking. I’ve googled unadopted roads and the answer is the police won’t get involved for obstruction.
They still have powers for un insured and taxed vehicles and drivers can still be done for drink driving similar to pub car parks.
I’m sure the developer can get an injunction but who would that be against

[hunton69]

Equus said:

The owner(s) of the vehicle(s) that were obstructing the road, of course.

That’s what I thought however there are over a hundred as the feelings are so high.

It will take some time to find the owners by which time delivers and plant equipment could cost the developer a fortune

[hunton69]

SpeckledJim said:

This sounds like a winning strategy.

Nimbys everywhere will be hoovering up 2002 Ford Focuses and littering them across the countryside.

I take it Plan Bat and Plan Newt both failed?

That’s my thinking.
It’s even easier 400 meters away is a metal recycling plant

[hunton69]

Equus said:

Which he will claim back as costs (he can seek damages as well as an injunction).

How deep are your pockets?

I'm into my 5th decade associated with the housebuilding industry, and I've yet to encounter a site where locals managed to block a development like this once PP had been granted.

It's easy to talk all Billy Big bks. Talk is cheap...

How can the developer claim costs against a random car which parks like an idiot.
My question is there maybe many random cars.

It’s interesting I haven’t said I’m going to be involved I am interested as I live locally.
Ironically I’ve had a developer who wanted to put a deal together on my land for 35 houses if anything this development helps as I’m further up the lane and the lack of footpath was an issue

[hunton69]

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

[hunton69]

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...

Edited by Equus on Monday 27th March 23:03

Thats interesting as my office has a service road at the rear for deliveries it constantly gets blocked and the police do nothing.
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

[hunton69]

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.
I guess may be wrong but that’s because bin
Lorries have had a right of way for many years

[hunton69]

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.
Site is 3.5 acres so not very big

[hunton69]

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]

I get all that.

I’m sure the residents are not going to prevent access but the way people park these days it may prevent a lorry access.
Last year the gas pipes were replaced it delayed the job as an idiot parked a car where they needed to dig and no one knew the owner.

[hunton69]

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.
What’s the point of CP12 if that’s the answer as most brownfield sites are just that

[hunton69]

The application had to comply with CP12
Why would I mention it?

[hunton69]

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.

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]

Equus said:

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.

I take it you haven’t read all my replies
It doesn’t effect me as I live up the road I dislike the number of properties but not development.

CP12 was the type of properties proposed that should be in keeping within the area.
There is a shortage of 3 bed houses at the last minute the developer reduced the flats by 4 to increase the houses by 2

[hunton69]

skwdenyer said:

I don’t have time to research it, but I believe I recall a case in which a developer was stopped from developing because the right of access was indivisible. In this case that would mean - IIRC - that the owner of the farm couldn’t unilaterally decide to create 34 new shares in the road. Nor could they necessarily create new rights of way to the 34 new properties.

Everything of course hinges on the detail. Who owns the road? What if any agreements exist over it? But it is worth the time to understand the true legal context.

Thank you.

This is the type of info I’m after.

This plot suits 9 detached houses which residents would support but council want as many as possible as they only achieving 38% of housing needs

Back in 80’s way before I lived here 5 houses were refused because of objections by the residents.
That would if secured the site

[hunton69]

Equus said:

hunton69 said:

I take it you haven’t read all my replies

What makes you think that?

hunton69 said:

I dislike the number of properties...

Like I said:

They've made a decision that you don't like.

Not particularly but as I said it won’t affect me.
I’m asking on here as residents have been talking about this and it got me thinking.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Just after i moved into
My current property we had a letter from
Highways to cut my laural back as there was a 30 mph sign in my garden and it was obscured.
We never knew it was there.
We refused
40 emails later after they threatened me powers to come in my land and do it themselves I threatened with my dogs I involved the police as I pre warned them that there would a breach of the peace.
Inspector turned up and agreed with me to move the sign 180 meters up the lane.
Highways wasn’t happy but it happened.
I originally offered to pay the cost but in the end didn’t because of the grief they caused me.
Moral of the story I never give up

[hunton69]

Equus said:

Sounds like you make a hobby out of being an unnecessary pain in the arse; even, apparently when something doesn't affect you.

You’re so judgmental without the facts.
The copper thought moving the speed sign up the hill yep it’s a steep hill was far safer from a 50 mph to a 30 and so did the neighbours.

The development isn’t great and I feel for those that it does effect.
The residents objections were laughable but they listened to an old councillor who lives in the lane.

I’ve already turned down a deal with a developer who wanted to do something similar but I wouldn’t sell up and see this area ruined.

May be I get involved because I care.