-
Given the costs he is incurring I can only presume his end game is to try and achieve permanent vehicle access to the property using the precedent gained in the construction process as his legal route in.
I'd say that's not entirely impossible (that they would succeed in that, I can well imagine that it actually is what they want), but fairly unlikely. Obviously, you never know what will happen in the fullness of time. One scenario that I could imagine would be if, say, a person without independent mobility were to purchase the house at a later stage. Would they require direct vehicular access to the property as well as an on-site car parking space? As the law currently stands (IANAL) I can well imagine that they might bring a reasonable case.
There is certainly always the danger, and one of the main reasons why I don't look favourably on this development, of the creeping urbanisation of green spaces. I've observed this happening quite a lot around Hackney Marshes in particular. It's often a very subtle encroachment at first that then paves the way (often literally) for further development(s). In that respect I certainly share your worry.
Without permanent vehicle access the sale price of the finished property will be pretty low (as i suspect was the price they paid in the first place). With car access the developer will make a killing.
You may know more about property prices than I do, but while direct car access would undoubtedly increase the value of the property, I don't think it would amount to that much. This is a development in a highly desirable area of London in 2016 and it will make the developer a lot of money (if they're not planning to occupy it themselves) whether it will be for rent or for sale and certainly won't fetch a low price whatever the weather. Residential on-street car parking is available in Holmesdale Road, which is a short walk away and people will have to carry their shopping to the house etc., but it is certainly not an unreasonable scenario in this day and age.
(For instance, nearby Camden has a car-free housing policy which requires people to sign agreements that they are ineligible for residential car parking permits. This policy is considered quite successful. From memory, the population of Hackney increased by about 44,000 between 2001 and 2011 and in the 2011 census, car ownership in the borough had fallen by about 3,000 compared to 2001.)
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
As I understand this the developer wants to use the parkland walk for his construction lorries as there is no road access to the property.
Given the costs he is incurring I can only presume his end game is to try and achieve permanent vehicle access to the property using the precedent gained in the construction process as his legal route in.
Without permanent vehicle access the sale price of the finished property will be pretty low (as i suspect was the price they paid in the first place). With car access the developer will make a killing.