‘Deeply unloved and deeply unwanted’ — residents of a road in St Helens are fighting back against a planning appeal which argues the nature of the road.
Outline development plans for 57 houses on the former Guildford Park camping site, on Guildford Road, were rejected by the Isle of Wight Council last year over traffic and archaeology issues.
The developer and agent, Phil Salmon, is rejecting the decision and is now appealing to the Planning Inspectorate.
A question raised throughout both planning stages was whether Guildford Road is actually a road — private and unmade or ‘a road to which the public has access’ as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act.
The Isle of Wight Council determined it was a private road, as signs on the entrance of the road suggest, falling outside the remit of the highway authority with no known owner.
In its report to the planning committee, officers said in the absence of any landowner, the courts will, if necessary, assume the landowners next to the road will own to the middle line of any road — the same principle adopted by HM Land Registry when determining property boundaries.
In the appellant statement, Mr Salmon says the council made a ‘legal error’ by making that decision.
He said:
“It is common ground that Guildford Road is not a highway … It is, however, a road to which the public has access, and is, therefore, a road”.
Now the residents’ group of Guildford Road are arguing issues have been left out in the appellant statement to the Planning Inspectorate and the developer does not own the land to change it.
Brian Williams, a member of the residents’ group, has said in November last year, the developer gave notice to residents saying they were seeking legal action over the status of the road, clarifying who owned the land but they had heard nothing since representations were sent back to solicitors. He said:
“It is annoying, it is like an itch, but no matter what they can throw at us we will overcome it”.
Former Isle of Wight Council leader Jonathan Bacon, a St Helens resident who has been helping those on Guildford Road, said:
“It seems a little odd as the nature of the road has not changed.
“They have completely failed to inform the Planning Inspectorates that there was this legal action.
“It is a very unpopular proposal here — it could potentially seriously affect the village. It is deeply unloved and deeply unwanted.”
developer and agent – phil salmon
environmental terrorist and destroyer of natural habitats – phil salmon
Phil Salmon is unconcerned by the environmental impact of his dubious scheme. Clearly is happy to completely wreck the environment, destroy natural habitats and ruin an area, just to line his pocket with cash.
selfish indvidual that deserves to be hounded off the island.
Oh behave yourself! Enough with this sanctimonious rhetoric.. You aren’t hounding anyone off the island. Idiot!
Perhaps you should behave yourself islandhammer – we are fed up with these selfish idiots wrecking the islands natural habitats ,just so they can profit from building more benefit hutches for more deadbeats to move into
You act like this place is some sort of Utopia.. It’s not, You are fighting a losing battle, Why? Because people need somewhere to live .. If its not St Helens it will be somewhere else on the island. Get used to it, you ain’t stopping anything and you certainly aren’t running anyone off of the island!
there are not great swathes of islanders sleeping shop doorways with pockets of cash looking for homes – ergo, we don’t need anymore built.
with your daft logic islandhammer, we will have houses built over the edges of the cliffs, propped up on stilts, as you will have built a shabby little benefit hutch on every square inch of land “because someone needs to live somewhere”
those protecting the islands environment will win against deadbeats like you that want to ruin the oxygen generating, co2 recducing greenland.
idiot and if someone needs running off the island, that can and does happen.
Not quite large enough for our council and it’s developer pals to be too fussed if it is forthcoming or not. They can gain more from larger, more destructive developments, and will.
Vote them OUT next time.
Ps, best hope the dust cart can gain access when the road becomes pot holed with all the building traffic.
Ban it. Think of Amy!
Amey!
Late Victorian or Edwardian Houses. So no motor cars when houses built. Probably former farm land, even common land. Footway of highway crosses
entrance. Does not sound like there is explicit permitted access on the definitive map. So not a highway or road, just land. Highly likelyownedin the absence of a live human person, or a corporation still existing, that is not officially dissolved, liquidated and assets passed on, or the assets were forgotten about prior to liquidation, then, i reckon owned by the CrownBona VacantiaAll land above high water mark is Crown Property. You are correct in your assumptions, sir, that the land in question is doubly owned by The State. But you know that… I wish our councils were as knowledgeable as their tax-paying drudges. I swear they vote each other in, or just appear like wraiths in a Gothic trash novel and plague previously sane people into submission. Either way, their greed is destroying our beautiful Wight. Fact.
They will get it eventually on appeal. Although I don’t agree with it…. I was once told by someone working on appeals for people and they basically said if you have enough money to throw at it then you will eventually get what you want.
Y not strt making tourism things instead of these housing estates