Notices issued to pensioners facing eviction from Lakeminster Park chalets
PENSIONERS living on a holiday park without planning permission have been issued with enforcement notices.
More than 100 residents at Lakeminster Park, off Hull Road, in Woodmansey have been told their chalets are just holiday homes.
-
Defiant: Ken and Gwen James, of Myles Avenue, Lakeminster Park, with their notice. Picture: Peter Harbour
East Riding Council says the notices do not mean people will be immediately evicted. Unless they appeal, the notices take effect on November 13 and residents have until May 13 to comply.
The park licence says people can stay there all year round but, legally, they must have another full-time address.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
Resident Gwen James, 76, said: "I was disgusted to receive the notice. We bought here because it was 12-month occupancy. We've done nothing wrong, we've paid council tax and everything.
"I've no intention of leaving. They will have to take me out of here in a box."
Mrs James and her husband, Ken, 75, sold up to move to the park and would have to stay with family if they were evicted.
A retrospective planning application by Lakeminster Park developer William Flannigan to allow permanent occupancy was rejected by East Riding Council in May. There were concerns over the risk of flooding at the site and the impact on residents of the construction of a new road nearby. Lakeminster Park Ltd has until November to appeal but has not yet done so.
For residents to appeal against the enforcement notice will cost them £670 but the council says they can club together for a joint appeal if they wish.
The authority says the appeal would suspend the enforcement proceedings and the issue would then be decided by an independent government planning inspector.
An East Riding Council spokesman said: "The council is mindful the enforcement notices will be of concern to people at Lakeminster.
"However, given the clear breach of planning control, the strong objections by other agencies and risk of harm, the council considers it has no other option in the public interest but to take formal proceedings."
Last October, after a previous threat of council enforcement, residents were invited to meet council officials at a meeting chaired by Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart.
Now, a new meeting has been organised, again chaired by Mr Stuart. It will take place at 10am on October 1 at County Hall in Beverley. The developer did not attend the last meeting but has been invited to this one.
Comments
by opinionhated
Sunday, September 23 2012, 8:12AM
“Oh yes, and before I go: 100 purchases = 100 Lawyers. Where was their due diligence? Thieving scum that they are.”
by opinionhated
Sunday, September 23 2012, 8:10AM
“"The park licence says people can stay there all year round but, legally, they must have another full-time address."...................
So why don't they club together and put £500 in the pot each. 100 x £500 = £50,000 = kennel on Hessle Road = full time address?? They could meet there for a game of sardines every year and rent it out to druggies for the rest of the time.”
by ickyplush
Sunday, September 23 2012, 6:44AM
“The council granted a license for 52 weeks a year. Pensioners are on 'holiday' for 52 weeks a year.
Surely they would want to use these homes to their full potential.
I don't get it.................bizarre.”
by jezhull
Saturday, September 22 2012, 2:12PM
“Unified, appears to be a lot more difficult to evict gyppos, who pay no taxes, create a terrible mess, and contribute nothing to society, than it is to evict these unfortunate people who were well and truly misled by the developer in the first place.”
by Robo1
Saturday, September 22 2012, 2:02PM
“Unified, you obviously know nothing of the situation on this site otherwise you would not be talking such rubbish; these people pay the full rate of council tax just like the ordinary man in the street.
Suzannah100, there is a site licence granted by East Riding council for 12 months occupancy for this site, what is not mentioned however is that the site owner mentioned it for selling purposes but forgot to say it was for holiday purposes only.
The council gave planning permission for 12 month occupancy but FAILED to make sure that all planning rules were being adhered to by the site owner.
The council were aware in 2008 that these homes were being used as a permanent residence, because I spoke to them about it then, I also had a conversation with one of their planning officers about that time, also I had communication with another department in the council who checked something with their legal department, I still have proof of the conversation in the form of letters from them.
In my humble opinion the council have a lot to answer to for their lack of due diligence, however the site owner is the person ultimately responsible for ensuring that all planning rules have been complied with. This ongoing saga has split the site and turned folk against each other, which is a sad state of affairs, the council should be taking action against the site owner and not the innocent people that have been duped, the site owner has admitted in court to miss selling the properties when the council took him to court last year, shame this little fact has not been given to reporters of this paper or it may have gotten in the way of a story.”
by MimiTheDJ
Saturday, September 22 2012, 11:19AM
“Speaks a lot of sense, and my tongue was also in my cheek. Must admit though, the thought of renting my house has crossed my mind and finding accomodation in a caravan on a friend's land. Wonder what the legalities are? I shall Google it.”
by Mark_Hull_65
Saturday, September 22 2012, 11:11AM
“The question's not whether the council would be daft enough to accept 100 people living at the same address but whether they would have the legal power to find otherwise.
I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I made my last post but there is a bit of sense to it.
Even if the council did have the power to check up on how long people were staying at their 'full time address', and I'm not sure they do, there must presumably be some sort of cut off line between what would count as full time and what wouldn't.
If I take a two day super-saver-mini-cruise to Amsterdam for a smoke, a large glass of Amstel and a portion of chips and mayonnaise I don't think anybody would dispute my address but what if I went for a week? Two weeks? Two months? 364 days? There must be a point at which a 'full time address' stops being a 'full time address'.
To be serious I see this two ways. Either the developers lied to the residents about the site being 365 day residency in which case they should sue the **** out of them or they knew the site was strictly holiday homes in which case they have to abide by the planning rules like the rest of us.”
by RoyHunt
Saturday, September 22 2012, 10:59AM
“Unified, if the council evicts you from your only home, whether it be a holiday home or not, then you are homeless based on the simple definition they own no home they can live in - is that too difficult for you to understand!”
by unified
Saturday, September 22 2012, 10:29AM
“markhull.65
Do you honestly think the council would be daft enough to accept 100 people all living in the same address.
No wonder this owner of this site could kid the residents if they all thought like you”
by unified
Saturday, September 22 2012, 10:26AM
“Royhunt, how can you be homeless if you leave your HOLIDAY HOME.”