Visibility Splay Requirements

[Sport]

We bought a farmhouse to renovate a few years ago. Adjoining the property is a development site. The builders submitted plans, have now been modified increasing the number of properties from 10 to 15 The Splay crosses the front of our property. Planners have approved the development despite us saying we are NOT prepared to sell the land required. The Approval notice says the developer can build but not occupy any properties until the developer has "RESOLVED" the visibility issues. We have NO intention of entering ANY negotiations with the developer or Council. Anyone any Thoughts.

Thanks. Phil

[Kelvin]

Are there trees/hedges blocking the visibility? 

[Sport]

Kelvin Over 35m of trees / Hawthorn Hedge up to 8m in height.

[ProDave]

Why do you not want to sell?  You hold the key, it could be worthwhile, enough even to then sell up and move elsewhere?

 

Worst case is a compulsory purchase for a small sum of money.

[Sport]

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Why do you not want to sell?  You hold the key, it could be worthwhile, enough even to then sell up and move elsewhere?

 

Worst case is a compulsory purchase for a small sum of money.

Property has been in family for 100+ years and we have already spent 300k on a forever home. (Heat pump, Solar and A energy rated) My understanding is compulsory purchase is not allowed as it is private residential not infrastructure and why planners have simply stated it is up to the developer to resolve the issue.

[Sport]

44 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Are there trees/hedges blocking the visibility? 

Kelvin Over 35m of trees / Hawthorn Hedge up to 8m in height.

[ProDave]

4 minutes ago, Sport said:

Property has been in family for 100+ years and we have already spent 300k on a forever home. (Heat pump, Solar and A energy rated) My understanding is compulsory purchase is not allowed as it is private residential not infrastructure and why planners have simply stated it is up to the developer to resolve the issue.

They don't need to buy your house, just the bit for the visibility splay, so you  end up with a pile of money and a slightly smaller bit of land.  Try and think of things you would like improved to your own property, like a new better entrance etc that could be part of your negotiations.

[nod]

Make no mistake 

The developers will find a way to resolve this 

 

We had a developer wanting to build 15 houses not far from us 

Local residents chipped in a £1000 each to hire a barrister and got it stopped Only to wake up one morning to bulldozers 

The Barrister said he could go to court and get an injunction Another 15 k There's 40 homes on there now 

[Sport]

8 minutes ago, nod said:

Make no mistake 

The developers will find a way to resolve this 

 

We had a developer wanting to build 15 houses not far from us 

Local residents chipped in a £1000 each to hire a barrister and got it stopped Only to wake up one morning to bulldozers 

The Barrister said he could go to court and get an injunction Another 15 k There's 40 homes on there now 

The only way to obtain the required visibility splay is quite simply by Criminal Damage if we refused to negotiate. Fortunately, our nearest Neighbour is Deputy Chief Constable for the adjoining police force!! Quite simply we see no reason to negotiate, removing a hedge and trees that give complete privacy from the adjoining road, absorbs traffic noise and would take 20+ years to regrow if moved.  NO Thanks.

[ProDave]

Do keep us posted what "solution" is found.

[Sport]

1 minute ago, ProDave said:

Do keep us posted what "solution" is found.

We will also be very interested; the builder is already under Criminal investigation for other issues!

[Temp]

I'd be setting up CCTV cameras to catch them if they go spraying weedkiller.

[Johnnyt]

As the quid pro quo, I would ask for one of the houses.

[Ferdinand]

Reading this, it is a potential goldmine if that is what you want.

 

No reason why you can't be asking for a serviced plot for your or your parents retirement bungalow, or one with a bungalow built on it, or an access to an otherwise not-developable part of your garden. Or 3%-6% or more of GDV seems quite possible if you have a Sword of Damocles over them, and there is no alternative.

 

Take some advice as to value. This could be half your pension fund.

 

Criminal damage may not be enough, since you can potentially (or now) put a fence or a wall round it, or grow the hedge back. That won't unblock the condition if it is as you say, as the Council will require it to be legally protected.

 

My one thought is whether it is already zoned as Highways Land, or some other overruling right.

 

When I got PP for a Housing Estate on family land, the people across the road were most annoyed to discover that "their" "private" verge between the fence and the footway had been zoned as extra Highways Land for half a century. Allowed the extra road width for a junction and an upgraded footpath to be a shared cycle / ped zone as part of the S106. We got rather shafted on the per plot price (30% of predicted value) but it was 2013, and we are about to cop a bit more for selling the 1m ransom strip we kept all the way round it to leverage access to the next zone.

 

Bloody County Council have forgotten to require the next housing estate site along to widen their 200m of footpath, so our new improved 2015 active travel facility suddenly goes back to a poor footpath.

 

Ferdinand

[Kelvin]

Can they achieve the required visibility by other means? Are you against the build generally? 
 

Even if they illegally damaged the existing trees/hedges it wouldn’t change the requirement that the visibility needs to be maintained and they wouldn’t have control over it.
 

However, if they can achieve the visibility by other means and you are against the build you lose out on a potential lucrative pay day. I’d spend a bit of time satisfying yourself they can’t achieve the required visibility in another way. 

[Conor]

Seems like a good way to add £100k+ to your retirement pot.

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

My one thought is whether it is already zoned as Highways Land, or some other overruling right.

That is an important point.  If not already so, erect a fence around it NOW just post and wire will do.

 

When I had this visibility splay discussion I was told that unfenced land within 3 metres of the road could be claimed as highway.  If that happens, you have lost any bargaining power.

 

 

[Ferdinand]

50 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That is an important point.  If not already so, erect a fence around it NOW just post and wire will do.

 

When I had this visibility splay discussion I was told that unfenced land within 3 metres of the road could be claimed as highway.  If that happens, you have lost any bargaining power.

 

 

 

The one I dealt with had a map of which land was included in the Highways Land, with a map in possession of the Highways Authority. My consultant knew how to get a copy after I told him that I knew that had been the position from way back when, and told him to go find the proof.

 

The Nimby Neighbours were trying to play the "not enough room for the required junction" game to stop the Planning Application. As ever anything becomes a lever to stop it.

 

It is quite common for techniial "ownership" to extend to the middle of the road, but the right to use for highway is more like an overruling Right of Way.

 

When we sold our large family home, technical land stuff caused havoc because the road had been moved 10m further away from our fence when the road was realigned by the govt when the M1 was built 200m away, and the buyer's adviser refused to believe we were unequivocally allowed to drive over the extra 10m of verge coming out of our drive. We had been there 37 years.

 

It's a game of GO that someone needs to know how to play. Or they could circumvent you.

 

It is incredibly important to come across as someone with heft, rather than as Mr Angry. When we sold out ransom strip I mention above, by getting a good RICS negotiator in we got multiple times the price initially offered.

 

My other tip is once you are sure your position is unassailable under appropriate advice, be prepared to use time as a lever and let the process take several years. Then there will come a time to grasp the nettle and make your move. You win the battle in the preparation.

 

F

 

[Temp]

58 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That is an important point.  If not already so, erect a fence around it NOW just post and wire will do.

 

When I had this visibility splay discussion I was told that unfenced land within 3 metres of the road could be claimed as highway.  If that happens, you have lost any bargaining power.

 

 

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

 

+1

3m is the standard width of a public footpath. 

 

 

[Kelvin]

Yep. The verge from the road edge to out boundary is 3m. 
 

We’d need to see pictures if the area in question to help answer some of the questions 

[saveasteading]

Highways will have a map showing the different categories of land. Such as carriageway, rights of way, footpath, verge in highways ownership.

I saw one that concerned a project, where the 'highway' was much wider than the apparent road. This I gathered was because old roads used to wander a lot for the avoidance of ruts and puddles.

As roads got better the landowners fenced further out.

Whether they now owned it was in some doubt.

Might be worth finding this map to see if you actually have rights to that land or it is " borrowed".

You have to be right on this or will end up with hassle and cost and still losing it. 

It is easy to be emotional and possessive about land and boundaries. But it was all fields and woodland once, and things change.

[Ferdinand]

39 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

+1

3m is the standard width of a public footpath. 

 

 

 

Can you add to that. What do you mean by "public footpath"?

 

In England (And Wales? Not sure about Scotland, which is a law unto itself in many things) it means an established public right of way which can be travelled by pedestrians (and everyone included in that definition). Of which there are 250,000km. Is that what you actually mean, @Temp?

 

Or do you mean verge, or pavement / footpath (ie 'sidewalk'), or something else? 

 

I have not seen 3m in connection with foot traffic, except in reference to the width of verge where a footway or cycleway is to be considered "physically separate" from the carriageway in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. If you have a cite, that would be great.

 

I may well be slightly overegging this, as I am currently interested in these categories since I am working with Equality law to have wheelchair blocking obstacles removed from public footpaths, bridleways and cycletracks in my locality.

 

Cheers

 

Ferdinand

 

[Ferdinand]

32 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Highways will have a map showing the different categories of land. Such as carriageway, rights of way, footpath, verge in highways ownership.

I saw one that concerned a project, where the 'highway' was much wider than the apparent road. This I gathered was because old roads used to wander a lot for the avoidance of ruts and puddles.

As roads got better the landowners fenced further out.

Whether they now owned it was in some doubt.

Might be worth finding this map to see if you actually have rights to that land or it is " borrowed".

You have to be right on this or will end up with hassle and cost and still losing it. 

It is easy to be emotional and possessive about land and boundaries. But it was all fields and woodland once, and things change.

 

To get that information without charge, you may be able to put in an FOI.

[ProDave]

Re the highway verge thing.

 

when I was doing our planning, the council first wanted me to "demonstrate control over the visibility splay"  well part of it was two neighbours front gardens.  I didn't really want to be negotiating with them.

 

I managed to get the planning amended to remove the "demonstrate control" clause after speaking to highways who told me the 3 metre thing.  He said any unfenced land within 3 metres of the road, if there is an obstruction restricting the visibility, just tell us and we will come and remove it.

 

That's why to strengthen your position if not fenced, get it fenced now.  If not you might just find one day someone has cleared it and there might not be anything you can do. 

[Sport]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Highways will have a map showing the different categories of land. Such as carriageway, rights of way, footpath, verge in highways ownership.

I saw one that concerned a project, where the 'highway' was much wider than the apparent road. This I gathered was because old roads used to wander a lot for the avoidance of ruts and puddles.

As roads got better the landowners fenced further out.

Whether they now owned it was in some doubt.

Might be worth finding this map to see if you actually have rights to that land or it is " borrowed".

You have to be right on this or will end up with hassle and cost and still losing it. 

It is easy to be emotional and possessive about land and boundaries. But it was all fields and woodland once, and things change.

Hi. Fortunately, we have the original hand drawn boundary plan of our property from the sales deeds dated 1920 which was when it was bought from a large estate. It shows the land we own and the tree line which is set back from our boundary. We refused to hand a copy to our council who are simply colluding with the developers at any cost. Our Council Serviss are provided by a company that is a partner of the developer. Why i think they have been forced to condition negatively the access. What they dont know is we have now obtained a copy of planning circular from the ODPM 25/11/02 which our solicitor says is still current planning policy and confirms our Council Planners are in breach of National Planning Policy as we have already said NO within the 6 weeks our council allows for objection. It will i am sure still be a big battle.