Trees cut down at Cornwall Drive off Baswich Lane

Yalla

Yalla

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
Have you forgotten this is Stafford we're talking about?
Click to expand...

Ah yes how could I forget! - this is the land that was reserved for the EDR and owned by a Company connected to the the ex leader of SBC. The EDR was left out of the Stafford Plan so the Company put in a Planning app to build houses. However SCC still had the land reserved for the EDR so it has to be presumed that said Company had inside knowledge :raise: It will be interesting to see the result of the appeal as I understood that the Planning Inspectorate had to agree to the Stafford Plan before it was signed off. The original planning app was turned down as SBC said they had sufficient houses planned to satisfy the long term need as laid out in the Stafford Plan.
 
Last edited:
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Yalla said:
Ah yes how could I forget! - this is the land that was reserved for the EDR and owned by a Company connected to the then Chief Exec of SBC. The EDR was left out of the Stafford Plan so the Company put in a Planning app to build houses. However SCC still had the land reserved for the EDR so it has to be presumed that said Company had inside knowledge :raise: It will be interesting to see the result of the appeal as I understood that the Planning Inspectorate had to agree to the Stafford Plan before it was signed off. The original planning app was turned down as SBC said they had sufficient houses planned to satisfy the long term need as laid out in the Stafford Plan.
Click to expand...

SBC's ex Leader, not Chief Exec, don't you mean - or is this yet another layer of murk?
 
Steve_b

Steve_b

Well-Known Forumite
Looks like someone doesn't like sharing
image.jpg
 
Jonah

Jonah

Spouting nonsense since the day I learned to talk
Walked round there last night and was amazed to see just how much they had fenced off. It's over half the length of the footpath now.
 
Steve_b

Steve_b

Well-Known Forumite
The land is private land and as such can be enclosed by the owners.

No planning permission is required for the fence as it is constituted as Permitted Development under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

SBC have confirmed
 
Yalla

Yalla

Well-Known Forumite
Steve_b

Steve_b

Well-Known Forumite
I
gilesjuk said:
The public have had access for a considerable amount of time though, establishing a right of way?
Click to expand...
ve lived up here for nearly 30 years, and I've never seen it fenced off. Developers must assume that as they have removed access they will have a better chance of getting their planning permission.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
I am not surprised the landowner / developer has fenced off their land. They are perfectly entitled to do so and it will make any future planning application simpler to obtain. A number of objectors have tried to use the village green status in order to try and stop planning permission being granted. By preventing access to private land it should reduce the number of people trying to use this as an argument.

You can find out who owns the land, or has an interest in the land, by carrying out a land registry search. This will cost a couple of quid.
 
Steve_b

Steve_b

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
I am not surprised the landowner / developer has fenced off their land. They are perfectly entitled to do so and it will make any future planning application simpler to obtain. A number of objectors have tried to use the village green status in order to try and stop planning permission being granted. By preventing access to private land it should reduce the number of people trying to use this as an argument.

You can find out who owns the land, or has an interest in the land, by carrying out a land registry search. This will cost a couple of quid.
Click to expand...
Inglewood own the land
 
Yalla

Yalla

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
Yalla, none of the bullet points quoted in the link require the land owner to apply for planning permission. The works do fall within permitted development rights. We all have these permitted development rights.
Click to expand...

What about this one?
  • it would be over 1 metre high and next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway);
 
Yalla

Yalla

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
I am not surprised the landowner / developer has fenced off their land. They are perfectly entitled to do so and it will make any future planning application simpler to obtain. A number of objectors have tried to use the village green status in order to try and stop planning permission being granted. By preventing access to private land it should reduce the number of people trying to use this as an argument.

You can find out who owns the land, or has an interest in the land, by carrying out a land registry search. This will cost a couple of quid.
Click to expand...

The village green status issue relates to the Falmouth Ave application on the basis that it was / is known as Stockton Common.. The piece of land is about a mile away and owned by Inglewood. It was not developed when the Saxonfields estate was built as it was reserved for the EDR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top