Author: simon
Hazelhurst, Freshwater: ‘Right To Wreck’ Covenant Surprise
Thursday, 12th June, 2008 at 11:41 am, Isle of Wight
The proposed development of Hazelhurst in Freshwater, diagonally opposite Dimbola Lodge, has cause a lot of consternation in and around Freshwater.
We covered the planning committee’s discussion of the case live at County Hall (complete planning meeting, Hazelhurst specific), where the planning permission was approved, on the developer’s third planning application.
Just when you thought it was all over, it looks like there’s another potentially significant twist in the story.
Brief background
Over 200 letters of objection were written to the IW council planning department during the last planning consultation process.
The planning committee, with the recommendation of the council planning department to accept, made the decision to allow the developer to demolish the current building and build nine new flats in its place.
There’s considerable frustration locally, to put it mildly, that this application was passed.
What’s new
There’s a lot of will from the people in the West of Wight to make sure things are done properly – driven largely by their desire to retain a strong community there.
This community ‘will’, combined with some digging for information, has turned up a number of covenants covering not only Hazelhurst, but all of the buildings along that stretch.
The most interesting and controversial is one containing a “Right to Wreck” clause.
‘Right to Wreck’
Back in the mid-1900 a group covenant was put in place in order to ensure that all of the homes in that row of houses were able to retain their view of Freshwater Bay.
It did this by all of the house owners agreeing not to build anything above four feet tall in front of the shared building line. If any of the buildings were to infringe this, the neighbours who lost their view have a clause, that in legalese is known as a ‘right to wreck,’ ie legally pull that part of the building down, if they give the owner 14 days notice.
These days a right to a view is not, what they call in the trade, ‘a material planning consideration,’ so is not a reason to reject a planning application. Having it in the covenant protects it outside planning law.
The area that this covers is 50 feet deep at the north of the site, widening to 69 feet at the bottom, shown in pink on the plans.
More to come
We’ve got more details on this one to come, stay tuned.
Thanks to those who helped out with this story.
Related posts:
- Hazelhurst, Freshwater: One Family Dwelling Covenant
As well as the Right to Wreck Covenant over the... - Hazelhurst, Freshwater: Original Planning Rejection Upheld By Inspectorate
There are smiles around some of the residents of Freshwater... - Hazelhurst, Freshwater: Planning Department Aware of Covenants
It appears that there’s another twist in planning peculiarities relating... - Hazelhurst, Gates Lane, Freshwater: Planning Committee Notes
For those who didn’t follow the live coverage of the... - Hazelhurst: Peaceful Demonstration For Ombudsman
A group of around 20 members of the public stood...
Email This Story To A Friend
Excellent.
The worm is turning into a great big snake.
What these bozos in Seaclose don’t understand is that there are now a growing number of residents who will not put up with their arrogance.
Well done to all in Freshwater.
(Report comment)
What a huge blunder by the planning people! So even if the builder puts these flats up the local people can come and knock them down again !!
How will the buyers ever get a mortgage or insurance ?
(Report comment)
‘Right to Wreck’ – Now, THAT’S Punk Rock!
(Report comment)
Doesn’t this make the council liable? They gave the builder permission to build something that would be illegal – sounds like aiding and abetting. It certainly the council isn’t fulfilling their duty of care to the adjoining residents.
Do you think the council knew about these covenants when they made their decision?
(Report comment)
Simone, bless you for your innocence!
Have you been living in Australia?
LOL
Council? Duty of care? As Harry Hill would say, “What’s the chances of that happening?”
(Report comment)
I was sorry to see that the wrecking can only be done by the affected residents. Still, I’m sure someone can lend them a JCB.
You’d think that the first job of the planning dept would be to check local deeds and covenants. A letter in the CP today reminded me of their ability to rubber stamp plans like the tin aircraft hangar (sorry, cinema) at Coppins Bridge, while opposing the conversion of a farm outbuilding to a bicycle shop!
If it’s not a conspiracy, it must be a cock-up.. :-)
(Report comment)
[...] 13th June, 2008 (6 seconds ago) at 12:34 pm (6 seconds ago), Isle of Wight As well as the Right to Wreck Covenant over the Hazelhurst property in Freshwater that has recently been given permission to be demolished [...]
(Report comment)
[...] IW Planning Department Aware of Right to Wreck In the same letter, stamped as being received by the planning department on 9th May (22 days before the Planning Committee), he also drew attention to the Right to Wreck covenant. [...]
(Report comment)
I have looked at the plans drawn by the architect. I can see his building line is drawn wrongly but on closer inspection the buildings around Hazelhurst seem to have conviently been moved too! The architect is from Ventnor isn’t he? I know landslips occur in that area but I haven’t heard anyone complaining of landslips in Gate Lane or the Square!!!
(Report comment)
This time I agree with the planners. Covenants are civil matters and not covered under planning law. The “right to trash” is held by a number of residents of Gate Lane and we will take the necessary steps to protect these rights.
(Report comment)
James, do you have a JCB?
(Report comment)