Tomataheeed Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I went to a meeting last night about the changes to an entrance to Green Oak Park in Totley. The council have seen fit to sell a piece of land overlookng the park, and someone has built a very nice house on it. All well and good, no real objections there. However, the council also sold access rights for vehicles through the park, so now vehicles will drive through a narrow entrance that is only used currently by pedestrians and the odd parks van. This is bad enough - there are concerns about saftey, about how to prevent joyriders drving onto the park, how to give access for ambulances etc. The longer term problem is that a precedent has been set, and the owners of each of a long terrace of 20 houses may now have the right to the same access, allowing the building of a row of garages. So what was a quiet entrance used nearly exclusively by pedestrians, could turn into a new "road". It could be very difficult for the council to prevent this happening. The city parks Director Mary Bagley and others admitted the decision to allow this was a bad one, but it is too expensive to "buy back" the access, and the owner may not sell of course. So the moral of the story is to fight these applications every step of the way, decisions cannot be changed later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeP Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 And we PAY these people to look after our assets? Oh boy. I cannot believe that the lawyers didn't flag up a possible issue of precedent here. Good advice on fighting the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 There is no precedent here Joe. This is just old fashioned NIMBYism. The house has a right of access, not a right to build a 6 lane motorway to a shopping centre in his back garden. Just how many daily vehicle movements does 1 house create? The house in question received planning consent and complied with statuary legislation. The planning process includes consideration of issues like roads, emergency service access and the like. Any future buildings including garages will have to go through the same process. There is no automatic right to anything. The rights granted are contained within a single legal document relating to a specific property. From what I've seen the residents are up in arms because... well because they like being up in arms about something. It's fashionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomataheeed Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 There is no precedent here Joe. This is just old fashioned NIMBYism. The house has a right of access, not a right to build a 6 lane motorway to a shopping centre in his back garden. Just how many daily vehicle movements does 1 house create? The house in question received planning consent and complied with statuary legislation. The planning process includes consideration of issues like roads, emergency service access and the like. Any future buildings including garages will have to go through the same process. There is no automatic right to anything. The rights granted are contained within a single legal document relating to a specific property. From what I've seen the residents are up in arms because... well because they like being up in arms about something. It's fashionable. I don't agree - should the council sell vehicle access rights over parkland to private housing? And it HAS set a precedent - Mary Bagley told me so, and she wished the approval had not been granted. Mary Bagley and others admitted that they have no idea how it got approved - "it was a bad decision" In addition, one of the councillers took it to the local ombudsman to try and get the decision overturned before the house was built, but legally the council didn't have a leg to stand on. It was a **** up, and the council have admitted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Mary Bagley doesn't know what she's talking about then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBouncer Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 And it HAS set a precedent - Mary Bagley told me so, I thought you were going add in a "so ner ner" at after that statement above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomataheeed Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 Mary Bagley doesn't know what she's talking about then. Which bit? The "bad decision" ? I can accept that people make mistakes at times. When it comes to planning however, there appears to be no legal way of fixing the issue - we just have to live with it. When it comes to encroaching on our parks, we are going to gradually lose them - I don't see the current building plans incorporating plans for parks - no new ones will be built, but the existing ones could get smaller or go altogether in time. I'd love to buy a piece of land on one of Sheffield's parks and build a house, but I don't believe that I should be allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 You're trying to change your words now I don't agree - should the council sell vehicle access rights over parkland to private housing? And it HAS set a precedent - Mary Bagley told me so, and she wished the approval had not been granted. She doesn't know what she's talking about. Let her get on with cutting grass and planting bulbs in the parks. It may have been a poor decision in first instance, but there is no precedent in that location or any other that justifies the scaremongering in your first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomataheeed Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 It may have been a bad decision in first instance, but there is no precedent in that location or any other that justifies the scaremongering in your first post. Why is it scaremongering? Mary told me that unfortunately a precedent had been set for this park, and some other residents have applied for access through the park to their properties. It may be very difficult and very expensive for the council to prevent these applications given what's already been agreed. She promised to fight any applications, but she may not be successful. I tend to agree with you that the initial decision was bad, but that one property with two cars doesn't make a motorway - I'm more concerned at the precedent, and I am someone that could financially benefit from an application to get vehicle access ! - my house backs onto the park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeP Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Hmmm.....not sure. Surely anyone who wants to do soemthing similar can now point to teh decision made and say 'Works for them, why not me?' This is often used in planning applications for amateur radio aerials, for example - look around the area for an aerial system of similar height and dimensions to what you want to do, then if your application gets turned away point the planners at that one and say 'You let that through, what's the issue with mine?' Seems that anyone wanting access could do a similar thing - 'You gave them access, why not us?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.