Planning nightmare for newlyweds
A YOUNG couple hoping to start a family in Shoreham have had their dreams dashed after a frosty reception from the village.
Brad and Claire Watson began their planning nightmare in August after they requested permission to build on land in Mill Lane, owned by Mrs Watson's family for more than 100 years.
"We have always wanted to move to Shoreham – that was our dream," explained Mr Watson.
"We sold our house in Kings Hill so that we could build on the land and start a family, but after the problems we have had there already it is clear it is not going to happen."
The newlyweds are living temporarily in a one-bed flat in Bayham Road, Sevenoaks.
They are expecting their first child in June and say the pressure is on to move into a bigger home.
But they are now looking elsewhere after their initial planning request became the centre of a bitter dispute.
Neighbours sent 28 letters of objection and argued the size of the two proposed houses was too big. They said they would prefer the land to be used as an orchard.
Reg Barnett, 65, whose home in Crown Road backs on to the land, said the village was equally upset about the new application.
"It is an absolute disaster – the whole village is up in arms about the application," he fumed.
"I would prefer the land to be left as it is, for the birds and animals and trees.
"We don't want a big wall backing onto our garden.
"There are old people who have lived in the village for years and the disruption would be upsetting for them. We will object to the new application with as much vigour as the last."
Mr Watson said he understood concerns about changes to the area but would appeal against the refusal by Sevenoaks District Council for their first application.
But he added: "Times change and developments happen but we have tried to do things the right way – we even took planning advice from the council.
"But we have had petitions listing our personal details in local pubs, abusive phone calls and overall small-mindedness from most of the surrounding residents.
"We wouldn't want to live in Shoreham now – I wouldn't say we don't care, because we do, very much, but we have tried to do things properly and it has got us nowhere.
"All we wanted was a family home but now we have had to change our plans to get planning permission for more, smaller houses and we will sell the land to the highest bidder."
The Watsons applied for permission for three terraced and two detached houses with parking in December
43 Comments
View all
by manuelization
Wednesday, August 17 2011, 1:55PM
“Welcome to the new and improved Nazi Germany, which in this case is none other than England.”
by james sloan, London
Thursday, March 04 2010, 12:32PM
“Maggie, Five Oak Green -
If you look at the application you will appreciate how much work has gone into it and how much care the Watsons have taken with all the legal, social and environmental aspects that needed to be considered. Employing professionals to assist with this would have been very expensive and I suspect the build costs would be funded through a development loan or mortgage. It seems pithy to suggest that there is ¿more going on than meets the eye¿. You might want to look closer to home for a hidden agenda (your own or the local residents).
It is a pity that the CPRE is so bereft of specific points to back their argument for refusal. One might expect such a body to present clear and coherent arguments on the pros and cons of such a development and offer some advice on how to resolve some of the issues. The KCC consultation appears to have produced a far more thorough, balanced and constructive document. If the people who are against the development were to objectively consider the legal and social arguments involved, the only reasonable conclusion would be how spurious their objections are.
The fact of the matter is that the South East faces an acute housing shortage and it is the responsibility of all communities, urban and rural, to address this - even if it means a small compromise of our own personal circumstances. One can easily see that if there is to be development in the area then this is an ideal site for it and objections on the grounds presented so far are nothing short of selfish driven by a 'not in my back yard' mentality.
One can only hope the local authority will consider reasoned arguments in determining the application and ignore the hysterical emotions if its detractors. The site should be allowed to be developed but whoever does this should strive to make it the best development possible - with or without the local residents cooperation.
Good luck and best wishes to the Watsons with thier project and the baby.”
by richard, kemsing
Friday, February 12 2010, 9:59PM
“Watsons dont sell the land, clear the trees to improve all round views onto your land, it not an 'orchard' that one shoreham resident would prefer to see, also all the trees would obscure the view of the five large sized caravans that you are legally entitled to house on the plot (for sure), throw in a few derilict cars and odd bulding materials, reapply for planning in 18 months to a year, buld the houses sell them and move from the petty small minded community that is shoreham (with a very small s)”
by David Manister, Suffolk
Friday, February 12 2010, 8:03AM
“I do not understand the problem here. Somebody wants to build a family home ON LAND THEY OWN. They are not going to build an ugly industrial unit.... Or something similar.
They are lovely people and would have made fantastic Neighbours.
Better the devil you know people of Shoreham.”
by Norman Stanley Fletcher, T-wells
Thursday, February 11 2010, 10:15PM
“Welcome to 2010 Shoreham residents.”