Planning Condition - turning area provision

[howplum]

Having just found this excellent forum and also a plot of land near to my house in Milton Keynes, I am in need of advice about one of the conditions the local council has imposed on the Planning Permission that has been granted to the current owner of the plot. 

 

The plot is at the end of an unadopted road which leads to a large commercial property, the owners of which also own, and are responsible for the upkeep of, the road. The are several houses on the road already, the last one being built in the 1970s, although the plot I am wanting to buy used to have a large barn on it, belonging to the bungalow opposite.

 

The condition states that before any house built on the plot is occupied a turning area has to be provided, apparently sufficiently large to allow a 7.5 metre truck, which will use a fair chunk of what will be the front garden. I understand this is calculated using a standard template.

 

My question is - can the council insist on this condition for an unadopted road?

 

I also notice from the approved plans that one visitor parking space has to be included, which the seller says is for the benefit of the whole road - is that right?

 

I have also raised another topic about a small strip of land next to the site - adverse possession?

[jack]

Welcome to BuildHub! 

 

38 minutes ago, howplum said:

I also notice from the approved plans that one visitor parking space has to be included, which the seller says is for the benefit of the whole road - is that right?

 

I can't help with the other stuff, but assuming the parking spot is on the plot, I can't see why there'd be an expectation about others using a parking spot on your land. I assume the planning approval doesn't say anything about it being for the road (that would seem unusual to say the least).

 

Have you checked whether there's any sort of covenant attached to the land? What about existing easements (eg, have people been using this land for parking for some time?) 

 

Assuming you haven't agreed anything in writing (including emails, ideally) and you're able to confirm that no rights to park exist, the seller can say what they like now, and I believe you can ignore it once you own the plot. You conveyancing solicitor should be able to confirm all of this.

 

[ProDave]

It is usual for planners to want you to be able to drive onto the plot forwards, turn round, and drive out of the plot forwards. That is the purpose of the turning space.  And it is normally designed to allow an ordinary car to enter and turn.  Asking for space for a 7.5 metre truck to turn sounds unreasonable, I would contest that and say you are only going to provide turning for an ordinary car.

 

The visitor parking space sounds like just 1 more space than the number of bedrooms would dictate so you don't have to park on the road, I very much doubt anyone not visiting you would use it.

[Mr Punter]

Perhaps they need a turning area for bin lorries and emergency vehicles.

[newhome]

Does the seller live in the same road? I’m thinking about whether he put these conditions on for his own benefit? Do you have a bin lorry that goes up the road? If so maybe this is what the council is thinking in relation to the turning? Where I used to live there were 4 houses right at the end of the cul de sac that were beyond the end of the road and had a private strip of road leading to them. The bin lorries wouldn’t go up there and we had to place our bins down the bottom of the private bit. 

[zoe61]

1 hour ago, howplum said:

I understand this is calculated using a standard template.

Think you can use a standard template but does use a lot of room. Autodesk Vehicle Tracking is the software to use to create the drawing. Really simple and quick! And companies charge a arm and a leg for it!!

 

Benefit of doing it this way is that you can show where the final axle sits and have the rest of the wagon overhang the garden if you like. On this size of wagon it isn't much but suppose it all helps.

[howplum]

Thank you all for your replies. I attach a copy of the site plan which shows the plot edged in green and the turning area required, which you can see takes up a fair chunk of the plot. I think your right @Mr Punter, it must be for bin lorries, emergency vehicles and delivery trucks, so not exclusively for the use of the plot.  At the moment I believe they reverse down the road, which is quite narrow.

 

However, my question remains - can the council insist on this turning area in an unadopted road?

 

I shall certainly check out the visitor parking space because it does seem unreasonable to provide it for public use, although no more unreasonable than requiring me to provide a turning area, or the bicycle parking I noticed on the plans!

Park Gardens site plan.pdf

[ProDave]

Having seen that, I would turn it around and suggest the vendor creates the "public" turning space, and you buy just the plot without the turning space.  That also passes the verge issue back to him.

[howplum]

5 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Having seen that, I would turn it around and suggest the vendor creates the "public" turning space, and you buy just the plot without the turning space.  That also passes the verge issue back to him.

That's a good point, but I am actually more interested in the wider part of the strip at the northern end, which is where I would like to put a double garage because the turning area only goes about halfway to the back of the plot. The turning area would then also give me access to the garage.

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, howplum said:

can the council insist on this turning area in an unadopted road

 

Your answer to that is in the reason the condition was as imposed, and that may be in the informational points on the Decision Notice, or in the Officer Report.

 

If it is not, ask.

 

Only then can you find a strategy eg it may be Fire Safety because you are more than x metres from where the engine can turn, but you may be able to mitigate with sprinklers.

 

PS there is lots of Chinese-puzzle style caselaw about Unadopted Roads, but I see no need to dive into that shark-infested custard until you actually need to do so. The easy way will be to understand the condition, find an alternative that is acceptable, then apply for the condition to be removed or modified.

 

If it can be met by an alternative means, it should fail one of the basic tests of a condition of being necessary, or you should get approval for a specific alternative proposal.

 

I would talk to Planning over this, as they may be helpful.

 

Another alternative is to go through with the full purchase then do your garage under permitted development, so the Planners can go jump in the lake.

 

Different versions of risk vs reward vs time vs cost. take your pick :-).

 

I would research then try and find an agreement with the Council then do a variation or removal to the condition.

 

Ferdinand

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Ferdinand

[howplum]

Thanks @Ferdinand. After some digging on the Council's website I found the Highways Development Management's observations:

 

"I have previously objected to applications on the site due to the unsuitability of the width and alignment to accommodate the additional traffic generated by proposals.  The current proposal is a significant improvement over the previous applications as an enlarged area is now provided for vehicle turning. This is acceptable. Parking for the site is provided in accordance with the parking standards and is acceptable (a visitor space is also provided).

 

I have previously commented on the layout of Park Gardens to accommodate the additional dwelling. This comment is reproduced as follows:

“Park Gardens is mostly a single track road with the two way sections being in the area close to Whalley Drive. Within the single track

sections, width reduces  to 3.1m but generally varies in width along its length. Overall Park Gardens is sub-standard for the number of dwellings served off a single track, private road. We would normally expect that single track, private roads should serve a maximum of 5 dwellings. There are 10 dwellings in Park Gardens.”

 

There remains a concern of general width but this is not so severe as to lead me to object to the proposals. With the enlarged turning area provided this overcomes my primary reason for objection to the previous applications.

 

I have no objections to the planning application subject to the following condition:

1. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted the scheme for parking and manoeuvring shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter.

 

Reason:

For the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access."

 

I think I may therefore have found the answer to my original question, and from the above comments I would imagine the condition cannot be removed, and it's difficult to see how it might be modified, given the lack of room.

 

Thank you to all of you who have responded - it was all most helpful.

 

All that remains now is to keep in touch with the seller to see how acquistion of the strip of land next to the plot is progressing.

[Ferdinand]

So who introduced the turning space for larger lorries requirement? On the basis of this comment you may get that modified out or made a little smaller.

 

Or you could eg propose a turntableor other solution.

 

There is nothing to stop you talking to the person who made the comment in Highways. The would probably like to get it resolved so as to not waste time commenting every couple years until doomsday.

 

Find out the engineer’s name and give him a ring. He may be a jobsworth but equally he could be very helpful.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Ferdinand

[newhome]

I had a look at the planning correspondence about this plot. A few things to mind. As you note the Highway Engineer objected to previous attempts to get PP on this plot so the latest application took previous comments on board which is why this proposal has now succeeded. So the applicant has actually included the turning area and visitors' parking space in the application. In my view he is then trying to get you to be responsible for paying for both these things when you don't actually own the land that they fall on. 

 

It also seems that a group of the neighbours have collectively objected to the dwelling and cited that the plot owner has claimed more of the plot than he owns. They claim that he has taken over part of the road and common land so I would be very careful with this purchase. They also cite that he parks over the road area so my guess is that he may commandeer the 'visitors' parking space' as his own once you have paid for it to be built. So getting the Land Registry details are crucial in this case, as well as potentially asking the vendor to pay for the development of the turning space and visitors' parking space. 

 

Here is a document on private or unadopted roads is useful. 

 

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00402/SN00402.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

[howplum]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

So who introduced the turning space for larger lorries requirement?

Another question for the seller to answer. From his comments I very much doubt he or the architect suggested it though.

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

Find out the engineer’s name and give him a ring.

I have his name and number, so will ring him next week.

 

1 hour ago, newhome said:

Land Registry details are crucial in this case

A copy of the Land Registry Title is attached, and clearly shows two separate plots. The seller lives in the house on the south side of the road, which is physically separated from the building plot on the north side by the road. However, they are currently both part of the same title, but are being separated by his solicitor.

 

The seller's original intention was to build a bungalow for himself on the plot and then sell his current house, but he has now decided to sell both, having found himself a project elsewhere for his retirement (he's a builder).

 

Ultimately I don't actually have a particular problem with providing a turning area, and it's probably not a deal breaker.  I could take the positive view and use it as the driveway to my hoped for garage. The garage could be set far enough back to allow me to park in front of it without interfering with the turning area. Obviously, it would better not to have the turning area taking such a chunk out of the plot though.

Land Registry title plan.pdf

[ProDave]

It is interesting how planning policies vary.  Up here, if you try and exceed 5 houses accessed from the same private track, they insist on upgrading the track to highway standard and the road being adopted as a public road.

 

I am sure that is what happened here. In 1980 when my plot first had PP it was a private track and would have been serving 5 houses including the one on my plot (if it had been built then).  By the time we moved here in 2003 the road was surfaced, adopted as a public highway, and serving 7 houses plus the first one we built and the neighbouring house under construction.  I don't know who paid for the road to be upgraded.

[newhome]

Who owns the bit shaded in red on the land registry plan and why is it shaded in red? Is it just the grey shaded area in dispute / not belonging to the plot? 

[howplum]

The red shaded area is already part of the plot - I understand it was acquired separately many years ago by a previous owner. So yes, it is just the grey shaded area that the plot owner is trying to acquire and which will eventually be included as part of the sale, should he succeed. If he doesn't then that could be a deal breaker.

[Temp]

If the road is unadopted and privately owned by that company...are you sure a new house would have a right of access over it?

[howplum]

I met the seller last night and after a bit of gentle questioning it turns out that the size and location of the turning area was in fact drawn on one of the previous planning applications by a highway engineer at the Council, who effectively supplied the solution to his previous objection to the development. I therefore cannot see that the turning area can be modified or removed without incurring a further objection from him.

 

In answer to my original question it would therefore seem that the adoptive status of the road is irrelevant, from a planning point of view.

 

Anyway, thank you all for your replies, they have been very helpful.

[PolicySucks]

If you require some swept path plots of the truck, PM me - I may be able to help. 

[howplum]

16 hours ago, PolicySucks said:

If you require some swept path plots of the truck, PM me - I may be able to help. 

Thanks for the offer. I'll bear it in mind.

[Ferdinand]

On 16/10/2018 at 08:00, howplum said:

I met the seller last night and after a bit of gentle questioning it turns out that the size and location of the turning area was in fact drawn on one of the previous planning applications by a highway engineer at the Council, who effectively supplied the solution to his previous objection to the development. I therefore cannot see that the turning area can be modified or removed without incurring a further objection from him.

 

 

So to pursue that you need an alternative solution that meets his needs as well as his (the engineer’s) idea does, assuming that he has got his understanding of policy correct and it has not changed, and that meets your needs better than his current conditioned solution.

 

Is that perhaps the start of a conversation, rather than the face of a brick wall?

 

F