Farmer put fence around our house

exiled_red

I had seen this story elsewhere, and regardless of the 'new' fence I don't see why you would build or buy a house like that with the entrance around the side and so close to a boundary, yes you get to look out over the field (until a farmer puts a fence up). The developer obviously did it to get an extra house on the plot, but surely they could have changed the layout to put the front door on what is the side of the house now. I feel sorry for the people who bought the house, they were probably somewhat naïve in buying it, but when the fence goes back up which is surely will somewhere, I doubt it will be a nice place to live

lookstraightahead

Quite ironic really - you buy a house for a view that has been taken away from the owner of the view ...

EachPenny

ruhe wrote: »

I feel sorry for the poor innocent owners of the house. I wonder how much has their property been devalued because of this issue which is now plastered all over the internet for all eternity and so unless there is legal certainty about this issue then who is going to buy a house where at any time in the future whoever controls the adjacent boundary (The farm owner) can do this again

If they have paid over the odds to have a house with a view (as the articles suggest) then they have fallen into the trap of thinking they have rights over adjacent land they don't own and have no control over. If the house loses value because the view is lost then the owners have nobody to blame but themselves.

I also wonder whether they asked their solicitor to investigate the "boundary treatment" plan which was the subject of one of the conditions attached to the planning consent. At least one of the planning drawings suggests the finished result differs significantly from that proposed in the application documents.

pinklady21

Ah - developer in breach of planning conditions for the boundary - I wonder if this is what had made the farmer get his big boys pants in a knot?

EachPenny

pinklady21 wrote: »

Ah - developer in breach of planning conditions for the boundary - I wonder if this is what had made the farmer get his big boys pants in a knot?

I'd think most people would get a bit annoyed if the planting which they thought was going to screen a development and make it blend in to the rural area didn't happen because the developer ran out of space to do the planting (because they had squeezed as many houses in as they possibly could).

I wonder if that could possibly be the case here?

Cakeguts

I seem to remember that when I looked at this development on the satelite view that the track running next to the houses in question was the access to a farm presumably the farm where the annoyed farmer lives.


I wondered if part of the fencing off business was to stop people on the new housing estate from walking up and down what is technically his driveway and over which they don't have any access rights?

EachPenny

Cakeguts wrote: »

I seem to remember that when I looked at this development on the satelite view that the track running next to the houses in question was the access to a farm presumably the farm where the annoyed farmer lives.

I wondered if part of the fencing off business was to stop people on the new housing estate from walking up and down what is technically his driveway and over which they don't have any access rights?

The driveway appears to have a public footpath running along it, so the residents have the right to walk along it, but it might of course be questionable whether they have a right to access it directly from the development.

One of the plans in the planning documents shows pedestrian routes through the development with lines and arrows crossing the development boundary (and beyond the driveway/track) with the note "Pedestrian linkage through to existing public right of way and wider countryside". If I were the landowner I would be unhappy with plans suggesting the residents of the estate have such 'linkage' to the 'wider countryside' which is in fact my private land.

The other potential issue is the track is probably used by farm vehicles, and depending on the nature of the farm there may be periods (e.g. harvest) where the track may be in use by agricultural vehicles until late at night. I can imagine complaints being made about the noise and vibration from these vehicles, and Environmental Health being asked to stop the farmer from farming outside 'social' hours. In which case a tall fence and a planted 'buffer' would have been beneficial to all concerned.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

I think we can all agree that, depending on circumstances of which we have no knowledge, the farmer's behaviour is either reprehensible or it isn't.

robatwork

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I think we can all agree that, depending on circumstances of which we have no knowledge, the farmer's behaviour is either reprehensible or it isn't.

Well if you're a 2-bob hack working for the Fail or Sun or even a literary colossus like the Lancashire Telegraph, a sad couple of newlyweds make a more sympathetic case than a get-orf-moi-land young tory.

westernpromise

It surely wouldn't have been beyond the wit of man to make what is now the front of the house the side of the house? Although I guess housebuilders like to build cookie-cutter instances of the same house over and over again so probably not.