Railway rise

[nxjen]

BB's post 5.14 am this morning clarifies ownership

[edhistory]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BB's post 5.14 am this morning clarifies ownership

I suggest you look at the plan I uploaded several months ago that shows the legal boundaries.

John K

[rupert james]

Please put it up now for all to see or will admin cancel it and all other posts?

[edhistory]

Another missing post.

You can find it here marked in red on the location plan:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=14/AP/1832&system=DC

John K

[rupert james]

Please post the plan

[edhistory]

The URL I gave points to the Southwark Council page for the 18-22 Grove Vale bat survey.

The plan is the last selection on the list.

John K

[richard tudor]

If the resident asked Cllr Barber for a barrier he would jump at the chance to organise a consultation to arrange.

Mention CPZ and possible cycle route done and dusted

It's a non important road.

[intexasatthe moment]

Developers draw red lines round the plot they wish to develop .They also indicate that they own the whole of that area .

But IME sometimes that red line creeps over into someones else's land .

[edhistory]

More boundary details here:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=1068BFAF88534D76D1A0719D72D62231?action=firstPage

take your pick.

Why do you think the boundary of the land purchased from Network Rail is incorrect?

John K

[BrandNewGuy]

richard tudor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the resident asked Cllr Barber for a barrier he

> would jump at the chance to organise a

> consultation to arrange.

>

> Mention CPZ and possible cycle route done and

> dusted

>

> It's a non important road.

It's a private road, so it's neither important nor non-important.

[richard tudor]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> More boundary details here:

>

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-appl

> ications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=1068BFA

> F88534D76D1A0719D72D62231?action=firstPage

>

> take your pick.

>

> Why do you think the boundary of the land

> purchased from Network Rail is incorrect?

>

> John K

Instead of always asking a question re most things tell us what you believe with actual plans to see not links that mean zero.

Will be interesting to read your answer

[Blah Blah]

Network rail replied to a FOI on this road and confirmed they did not own that land. Some differing opinions here, but still no evidence that the owner of the property in question owns the road.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/designation_of_railway_rise_se22

The land registry though shows the cottages sold as freehold. But the road does not belong to the freehold of those cottages. So no owner there has any right to enforce parking. Only the landowner can do that and I think given it's a commercial landowner, they probably don't care who uses it for now.

I suspect there's a bit of OCD going on. Most of us live on roads, and have people parking and coming and going outside our homes all the time. If the commercial landowner does redevelop the site, they are going to have an increase in traffic anyway.

[edhistory]

It would be a serious matter to utter a knowingly fraudulent plan as part of a planning application. If you have such evidence you should report it to Southwark Council.

If you had looked at the plans you would have seen that the land in question is part of the old garden centre freehold and runs to the railway cottages boundary.

If you have contrary evidence you should report it to Southwark Council.

Can you confirm that you approve of this anti-social behaviour?

John K

[intexasatthe moment]

Why do you think the boundary of the land

> purchased from Network Rail is incorrect?

>

> John K

I don't really John I just think they could be . And that location plans submitted with applications for pp show only the proposed development plot outlined in red and nothing else .Not ownership for example .

I'm a little bitter because my neighbour has got pp to develop land that is not entirely his . Planning authorities don't ( can't ) get involved in boundary or ownership details /disputes .It is presumed that developer is telling the truth and burden and cost is on the objector to prove .

Developers get away with such stuff - 4th floor above Iceland ,retrospective pp for Cafe Nero that was granted permission to operate as a take away but only ever operated as a restaurant and so on .

[edhistory]

The Caffe Nero saga is not yet over.

The retrospective was about the change of use to A3.

The freeholder still makes intermittent attempts to add an extra floor on top of the building.

I still can't find the planning permission for the shop between Nero and Brickhouse.

The actual building work at the rear of Iceland is strange. I don't see how the retailer will be able to do any rear deliveries. Can someone explain?

John K

[spider69]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would be a serious matter to utter a knowingly

> fraudulent plan as part of a planning application.

> If you have such evidence you should report it to

> Southwark Council.

>

> If you had looked at the plans you would have seen

> that the land in question is part of the old

> garden centre freehold and runs to the railway

> cottages boundary.

>

> If you have contrary evidence you should report it

> to Southwark Council.

>

> Can you confirm that you approve of this

> anti-social behaviour?

>

> John K

So, she does not own the land. Discussion over I feel.

[BrandNewGuy]

Southwark's report of the Grove Vale CPZ consultation from four years ago states that Railway Rise is not a public highway:

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25008

[page 40]

And the woman from the cottages doesn't need to be 'enforcing' anything to tell people not to park there. Her manner might have been off, but it seems to me she's entitled to reiterate what the owners have painted up all along the hoardings on the other side of the road.

[edhistory]

spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, she does not own the land. Discussion over I

> feel.

So, you would deny her the right to protest about ant-social behaviour outside her home?

John K

[richard tudor]

Dropping someone is anti social? It happens on every street.

Please grow up and live in the real world

[Louisa]

Maybe what is considered anti social to others isn't to you richard tudor. But then, you're not living on Railway Rise are you? So why would it bother you?

Louisa.

[richard tudor]

It bothers me that someone who has moved in knowing full well the use of the road now is trying to alter the status quo on land she does not own.

I suspect that this has more to do with getting markers down to stop development of some of railway cottages and any points to prevent this will be welcome.

If the developer wants to enforce strict no stopping they should put a security guard there 24/7

I cannot believe that dropping and stopping happens 24/7.

I seem to recall someone mentioned she had no problem with people stopping for the tyre shop?

[BrandNewGuy]

That's the whole point about permissions on a private road. It's arbitrary. And if the owners put up a sign saying 'No parking', then don't park there.

[rupert james]

This is not about parking but dropping someone off.

Door open / door shut / off

Somehow different to parking

[BrandNewGuy]

But you don't deny that others park there in order to pick up? And as it's a private road, they could, if they wanted, insist on no parking or dropping off for anyone unless by agreement, which is presumably what they have with the tyre place and the builders' yard.

Yeah, that might be a pain and seem unreasonable, but it's their call not yours.

[rupert james]

I might have had sympathy if as the OP stated she had not been abusive over a very minor and unimportant incident.

I cannot see what has changed. When the garden center was there people parked all along the garden center wall and she accepted that after moving in for a long period of time. Now they have gone she does not accept anyone stopping.

More to this than meets the eye.

Is there not a Railway Rise Action group objecting to the proposed demolition of the cottages? No 2/3

On gossip dated 8th January 2016. Interesting read any connection.