'We'll fight for homes' say pensioners facing eviction from Lakeminster Park
PENSIONERS fearing for their futures on an East Riding holiday park have vowed to appeal against council enforcement action.
More than 100 residents at Lakeminster Park, off Hull Road, in Woodmansey are being told their chalets are just holiday homes.
-
Angry: Dave and Pam Foulstone of Lakeminster Park, Hull Road, Beverley
But East Riding Council says the enforcement notices it delivered last month do not mean people will be immediately evicted.
Residents have until November 13 to appeal.
You ever dreamed of owning your own baby grand piano ? We can make it affordable with low-rate finance to suit you and its on offer as well save £850 with this voucher ! £6499
01482 326525
Contact: 01482 420006
Valid until: Saturday, August 31 2013
A meeting last week between council officers and residents spelled out what happens next.
Dave Foulstone, who lives on the park with his wife, Pam, said: "The meeting didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
"We're intending to appeal and it will go to a public inquiry.
"I can't believe we're being treated like this."
The park licence says people can stay in their homes all year round but they must have another full-time address.
A retrospective planning application by Lakeminster Park developer William Flannigan to allow permanent occupancy without the need for residents having another address was rejected by East Riding Council in May.
Council officers said there are concerns over the risk of flooding at the site and the impact on residents of the construction of a bypass road nearby.
Residents have questioned why the flooding issue was not a block to their homes being built in the first place.
They have also asked why the bypass route will not be a problem for other Beverley homes it passes close to.
Lakeminster Park Ltd has until November to appeal against the planning decision but has not yet done so.
Residents wishing to appeal against the enforcement notice will have to pay £670 but the council says they can club together for a joint appeal, should they wish.
That is exactly what Mr Foulstone says will happen.
The authority says the appeal would suspend the enforcement proceedings and the issue would then be decided by an independent government planning inspector.
Shortly after the enforcement notices were delivered, 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."
Lakeminster Park Ltd, the company behind the development, is being investigated by police following complaints about how the homes were marketed.
Many people sold up their homes and moved to the park, intending to live there full-time.
Humberside Police has confirmed an investigation is under way following an allegation of fraud.
Officers have been speaking to occupants of the homes at Lakeminster.
The investigation is continuing and is running separately to the planning process.
Comments
by arntdullinul
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 9:36AM
“I really do feel very sorry for these poor people particularly if they were duped by either the developer or mi' learned friends. However, could someone please explain to me the difference between this and Dale Farm situation?”
by jarvosdad
Monday, October 08 2012, 8:51PM
“Why don't all the residents in the Odd numberd Houses put down the Even numberd houses and the Even numberd houses put down the Odd numberd houses as there other address for the 2 Months they are not allowed in there Homes,A 2 Months Joint Tenancy's ......Rent Free,”
by richspice
Monday, October 08 2012, 7:39PM
“This sounds just like the case not long ago where there was a group of caravan owners who wanted to live in their caravans all year round as their home. But in the same way it is not a housing estate or a retirement complex it is a group of holiday homes on a holiday park and therefore should be treat as such. Do these properties pay the same rate council tax as they would if on a housing estate? and it is implied here they restricted to pensioners is this correct if so it is a retirement complex and should have a licence for that not a holiday complex it seems to be unfair to tell people that they can treat the chalets as a home and if this is incorrect the seller has misled them and is legally in the wrong and should be sued and perhaps refund the buyers”
by ribert
Monday, October 08 2012, 6:40PM
“Buckr:
What a lot of assumptions you have made.
Have these residents gained legal aid? If not why will it cost the tax payer a penny?
How do you know that the same conveyance/solicitor did not carry out all of the work?
Were you party to all documents-representations made by the vendor to the purchasers?
Why do you object to these people seeking re-dress for what they believe to be a legal wrong?”
by buckr
Monday, October 08 2012, 9:46AM
“This is going to turn into one of those long drawn out cases, costing us, the taxpayers a fortune.
There must be a legal paper trail on this problem.
If it says residents can live all year there, the seller should reimburse them and they can move to another house.
If not they should be evicted according to the rules.
I for one, am fed up with "we were not told" or "I didn't know". We werew told in primary school that this was not an excuse.
The onus lies with both parties to make sure all information is understood.
Wasn't the site previously a caravan site ?
Did this not give someone who was being paid by the buyers/seller some form of clue that maybe slightly more checking was required ?
More likely the lawyers involved had some interest in the project !!!”
by captainmerlot
Monday, October 08 2012, 9:22AM
“The vendors appear to have told buyers that they could live there all year when they couldn't. "
Not sure how correct this is - either the buyer solicitors missed this when checking the legal paperwork and encouraged the buyer to complete without the necessary permissions, or the solicitors made the buyers aware that only holiday home consent had been given at the time of exchange of contract and a full application to be submitted retrospectively. In which case the buyers may have known about the issue but choosed to proceed with the purchase nevertheless.
Assuming most buyers used there own solicitor, I would doubt that each and every one made the error regarding planning - I would suggest that the decision to complete was probably one made by the purchaser after being given the cenarios.
It would appear that in previous articles, liability for the permission has pointed to the builder by suggesting that the homes could be used year round, but ultimately the decision to proceed without the permission was taken by the buyers solicitor and buyer.”
by DanDrimire
Monday, October 08 2012, 7:21AM
“A point to ponder ........
If I sell my house "having never been flooded" and the new purchaser discovers, after moving in, that I have, in 2007, who is at fault?
Obviously I told a lie, therefore I am legally responsible for misleading the buyer.
This is an identical situation. The vendors appear to have told buyers that they could live there all year when they couldn't. They can't therefore just continue to live there all year .... just think of the ramifications. ANY builder can say what they like to buyers (Yes Madam, these houses are nowhere near he proposed new bypass) and then, when the deception is exposed, deny liability.
Sorry, good folks, you have planning laws or you don't. Do what another park in East Yorkshire does and register as "security staff" and then you CAN stay all year!”