Visibility Splay Requirements

[Kelvin]

If you’re absolutely certain they can’t achieve the visibility necessary in another way then fight the fight. I might consider some legal advice to cover all bases. 

[Sport]

1 hour ago, Kelvin said:

If you’re absolutely certain they can’t achieve the visibility necessary in another way then fight the fight. I might consider some legal advice to cover all bases. 

No question they cannot get it. Where it crosses our boundary, it is over 1m inside our hedge straight across our front lawn. What makes us mad is we never objected to the 10 properties because the entrance was over 50m from our boundary. The revised drawings have 3 entrances the one nearest us is less than 6m away.

[Sport]

15 hours ago, Johnnyt said:

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

Thought of that but my guess is the management fees for the development will be astronomical as it is out of town and our Council refuses to maintain this type of development.

[Kelvin]

14 minutes ago, Sport said:

No question they cannot get it. Where it crosses our boundary, it is over 1m inside our hedge straight across our front lawn. What makes us mad is we never objected to the 10 properties because the entrance was over 50m from our boundary. The revised drawings have 3 entrances the one nearest us is less than 6m away.

So the previous scheme had an entrance that had the required visibility that didn’t involve your land and they’ve subsequently revised it so that some of properties have entrances that do rely on your land for visibility? 

[saveasteading]

If you can copy the visibility splay drawing that might be helpful. Delete addresses and references etc if you want.

I am just recalling a housing project where the visibility was dropped a lot, despite it being clearly dangerous and officially objected to. I e you can't rely on a planner understanding ,(they are not technical) or highways having the time. Or something less than ethical might happen.

 

[Temp]

6 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

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

 

 

I mean both really. We have a public footpath through our garden and was told the standard width was 3m when we had it diverted along the boundary. 

 

Ive always assumed that was the width they wanted for footpath alongside a road but haven't seen any documentary evidence/law that supports this.

 

[Sport]

2 hours ago, Kelvin said:

So the previous scheme had an entrance that had the required visibility that didn’t involve your land and they’ve subsequently revised it so that some of properties have entrances that do rely on your land for visibility? 

Spot on, 2 of the 4 properties are 4/5 bed, double detached garages probably sell for around 600k each!! the other 2 are 4 bed detached with single detached garages around 535k. None of which were on original plans as the 10 properties were arranged in a totally different layout. This has been done to maximize space and profit.

[saveasteading]

23 minutes ago, Temp said:

evidence/law that supports this.

I found online that it the width for a cart to divert off and on again.

[Kelvin]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

Spot on, 2 of the 4 properties are 4/5 bed, double detached garages probably sell for around 600k each!! the other 2 are 4 bed detached with single detached garages around 535k. None of which were on original plans as the 10 properties were arranged in a totally different layout. This has been done to maximize space and profit.

Sure. The more houses they can cram on the site the better commercially. Without seeing the overall scheme layout it’ll be hard for any of the experts on here to offer much more advice. 

[Ferdinand]

Relying on a deed from 192x when the laws were all thrown up in the air more recently and rewritten heavily (ie post WW2), might not be *that* secure IMO.

 

But I wish you ATB.

[Sport]

On 30/11/2022 at 09:25, Kelvin said:

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 

Ironic Highways now admitted land is Third Party and imposed a condition on development that 2 detached properties cannot be built AND NO other properties can be oxccupied untill Visibility splays are COMPLETE!

[Sport]

On 30/11/2022 at 06:11, Ferdinand said:

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

Planning now imposed condition two properties cannot be built, none of the remaing 70 can be occupied before all visibility Splays fully constructed.

[Conor]

11 hours ago, Sport said:

Planning now imposed condition two properties cannot be built, none of the remaing 70 can be occupied before all visibility Splays fully constructed.

The developer may as well hand you a blank cheque. Enjoy your early retirement.

[saveasteading]

8 hours ago, Conor said:

Enjoy your early retirement.

Never discount the bloody mindedness of housing developers.

Trees down, land pinched etc then "our lawyers are bigger than yours". 

And appeals. 

The fence discussed earlier may be worth the investment. And photos of the existing.

[ProDave]

1 minute ago, saveasteading said:

Never discount the bloody mindedness of housing developers.

Trees down, land pinched etc then "our lawyers are bigger than yours". 

And appeals. 

The fence discussed earlier may be worth the investment. And photos of the existing.

I would still give in to the inevitable. It is going to happen, so negotiate and make it happen on favourable terms to you.