REF: W/13/01998/PN
SITE ADJACENT TO 1 BROADWAY LANE, FLADBURY, WR5 2QF.
We note that 3 objection letters have been received and offer the following responses. We note
that many of the issues raised relate to inferred private legal issues between the owners, and not
directly planning issues.
Letter from Simon Taylor and Sonia Harrison (No. 4).
These residents only have right of way over the land which is owned by the applicant. Number 4
do not have a right to park any vehicles on the land or block access to the other properties, this is
a legal issue which the residents should be fully aware of, and by their own admission they are
parking in an area which they have no right to do so. In 2009 the residents at number 4 were
written to by Mr Drinkwater’s solicitor reminding them of these facts when a previous issue arose
around parking and blocking of access.
The application plan is a proposed site plan, and therefore is not how the site is now, as the
existing site photo below shows signs of where residents have trespassed onto the applicants site
to provide additional parking for themselves, which is not acceptable.
The aerial view of the site, taken from Google earth shows this more clearly.
There is no reason why the area of drive in front of the site should be used by others for parking,
and even more insulting to the applicant to then try to use this as a basis of objection of denying
the opportunity to provide Fladbury with much needed affordable housing. We would also point
out that the proposed application plan allows offsite parking and turning for the new properties
and therefore will in no way reduce parking the residents already have on their own properties –
REF: W/13/01998/PN
access (which they do have a right to) will be maintained. It is clear from the ownership lines
above that they should not be parking on the entrance area of the site. This too would cause
obstruction to vehicles trying to use the drive.
The objectors also refer to ‘less parking than they are entitled to’. Under the applicants deeds,
they are not entitled to park a vehicle on the shared area, therefore their rights will be unaffected
by the proposal. It is clear that they have got used to using the applicants site illegally for parking
which is not acceptable.
Letter from Richard Skinner (No. 3).
The writer suggests that the Poultry business would be adversely affected, but does not give any
valid justification for this claim.
The access to the farm is separate to the Broadway Lane entrance, and accordingly they admit to
illegally parking on the applicants land, and along the access road owned by the applicant, which
should not be happening. Number 3 has a right to park 1 vehicle on the shared drive, and this
parking space has been designed opposite their existing drive on the shared area to provide them
what they are legally entitled to.
Parking on a narrow lane as opposed to their own properties would not be advisable, and
certainly no one is forcing them to park in any specific location, it is entirely their own
responsibility to legally and safely park their own vehicles, and parking on land that does not
belong to them is not acceptable. It is questionable as to why 12 vehicles are parked on a shared
area that has only permission to park 2 vehicles (No3 has 1 vehicle, and No2 has 1 vehicle).
The letter highlights a highway issue further away from the development which is a separate
issue and would not be made worse by this development. The proposed development includes
off road parking and a private turning head, which would be an improvement to the shared drive
in question. The proposal would not affect any existing rights that are provided for the existing
residents.
Letter from Mr and Mrs J Westwood (No 2).
The loss of direct sunlight to a patio area is not a planning consideration. The most important
issue is that the proposed development does not affect any other properties’ right to light.
Number 2 Broadway Lane already has one existing property to the west, and accordingly the
addition of two more properties makes no difference to their right to light. The exterior spaces of
the property are not habitable areas, and therefore should not be used as basis for objection. It is
questionable as to whether the area does indeed benefit from any direct sunlight, as it is on the
North side of the property with a 6tf boundary fence to the west. The position of the new
buildings will make no difference to the current light to which their dwelling currently benefits.
The conveyance plan submitted by Mr Westwood indicates a hatched area, however the legal
description of the meaning of the hatch is not provided, and instead has been hand annotated
saying “Parking Area”. This is not correct. The hatched area in fact denotes the area of land
over which they have a right of access and the parking of 1 vehicle, so it is very odd that they
suggest the hatched area on their plan is ‘their right to park’, as this clearly would give the ability
for them to block access for the other residents. This is not accurate. Their designated parking
space within the shared area has been provided for them directly opposite the entrance to their
property within the shared area.
Although we appreciate this is a private legal issue and not directly a planning matter, we should
explain the following facts. Mr Drinkwater is the owner of this ‘shared drive’ and within his deeds
REF: W/13/01998/PN
it identifies that the 4 dwellings have a right of passage over the land to access their properties. It
also identifies that No,2 and 3 have the right to park one vehicle each within the shared area.
Number 4 does not have any right to park any vehicles in this zone. It is also unreasonable of
them to suggest that just because they have taken it upon themselves to increase their own
parking allowance without permission, that the development therefore would somehow remove
their legal right – this is not the case.
The letter also refers to a movement in the right of way the footpath over the south side gardens.
This footpath was realigned with the knowledge and support of each of the residents, and was
straightened up in 2006 to tidy it up. It is disappointing that it has taken them 7 years to raise an
objection to this as a basis for objecting to the proposed development. The right of way still
exists, and if this is a problem the original position could be reinstated with ease.
The driveway is in the ownership of Mr Drinkwater. The right to use it as a right of way is subject
to the 4 properties paying a proportion of the upkeep, wear and tear. The dates suggested for
resurfacing are not accurate, and any works undertaken should have been done so by the owner
of the land (Mr Drinkwater), and not by themselves. The suggestion of dumped building materials
is not accurate, and was in no way related to building works undertaken, or irresponsible disposal
of material. The area was re-landscaped to discourage unauthorised parking some years ago
when it came to light that vehicles were being parked on the access area causing blockages to
other residents and a danger for visibility near the entrance. Vehicles should only use the drive
for access, and it is clear from the letters that there has been an incorrect assumption that they
are able to park wherever they wish, which is not correct. Dr Drinkwater has provided parking in
a safe location on the access road, which allows unobstructed access to all the residents.
The letter also refers to an agreement with the land owner that they have a benefit to the land and
have been maintaining it. This is not a correct statement, the land is wholly owned by the
applicant, and there is no right for any other party to access, maintain, or amend this property
(other than given rights of way and maintenance of their own properties). By their own admission
they have trespassed, and as Mr Drinkwater was the owner of 1 Broadway Lane for the period
2005 to 2006, he can confidently confirm that no other parties maintained this land. To state that
they have maintained this land for 24 years is wholly inaccurate, as the applicant lived there for a
period of this claimed length of time, and has never been notified that Mr Westwood wished to
use or maintain this land. He should not be maintaining this land (if indeed he is)
The land is certainly not public amenity space, nor designated green space, they have no right to
use it, and possibly having a marginal view of some of the site from their property is not a
planning consideration.
Conclusion
Whilst we feel it necessary to respond to these inaccurate claims, we also remind you that they
are not planning issues. The objection letters have brought several issues to light which were
unknown, which will be dealt with sensitively and appropriately by the applicant outside of the
planning process. We have enclosed a copy of the property deeds so that if you wish you can
verify the facts stated, however, these should not be planning considerations for the
determination process.
To assist the existing residents with parking, in addition to the parking space allocated for No2
and No3, an additional 2 spaces adjacent to these bays for visitors, therefore 4 spaces are
designated. This is 2 more than is legally required under the deeds. It is apparent that without
Mr Drinkwater having a presence on site, they have used the proposed development site for the
parking of additional vehicles which is neither allowed, nor a valid justification for objecting to a
planning application. The shared area is not the only area within which they can park in this area,
REF: W/13/01998/PN
as each of the residents also have their own allocation of parking within their own land, and their
own garages.
If you feel that any of the issues raised need to be dealt with as part of the planning application
process, please identify which issues they are and we will happily look into it as soon as possible.