House took 17 years to build

DEVELOPMENT control chiefs at Warrington have decided there is no action they can take over a long running neighbour dispute involving a house first granted planning permission 17 years ago.
The dispute centres on access to a house built in the grounds of an existing house in Twiss Green Lane, Culcheth.
It was first given outline planning consent in 1992, with reserved matters approved the following year.
But the scheme was not implemented and planning consent was renewed in 1997 and again in 2002. Work on site started in 2007.
In a report to the borough council’s development control committee, planning chief John Groves, says breaches of planning conditions have been alleged over a considerable period.
Conditions were attached to ensure the protection of trees subject to tree preservations orders and to ensure access to Twiss Green Lane was improved and available for use prior to the new house being occupied.
The developer chose to create an access for construction traffic via Marton Close which crossed a public footpath.
Residents of Marton Close complained, but an investigation by the public rights of way officer concluded this did not raise issues in terms of protecting the right of way.
The development proceeded slowly and the occupiers of two properties in Marton Close raised concerns over its legitimacy. Enquiries with the developer indicated the access was intended for the period of construction only.
Mr Groves said this information was passed on to the complainants, together with assurances that the Twiss Green Lane access would have to be provided before the house was occupied. The council assumed once the house was completed, the Twiss Green access would be made available and the access to Marton Close would cease.
Eventually the Twiss Green access was provided – but the Marton Close access remained in place to the annoyance of the complainants.
They claimed it caused a loss of amenity.
Mr Groves said the use of this access perpetuated a longstanding neighbour dispute which had required the intervention of the police and the courts.
But he said it had been concluded it would not be appropriate to take enforcement action as there was nothing to indicate the new access would raise any highway safety or amenity objections. There was nothing in the requirement for an access to Twiss Green Lane which precluded a second access.
Mr Groves said the development had taken a long time, to the understandable annoyance of the Maron Close residents.
But it was considered there are no legitimate planning considerations which would justify enforcement action to require the removal of the access.
The obvious route for the Marton Close residents was to pursue the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman. The council had pointed this out to them but no such action had been taken.