DCSIMG

Homes plan compromise is rejected

LIGHT FIGHT ... above, from the left, Ken Lynch, Olive Lynch, John Hall, Olive Fee and Jo Hall on Temple Park Road. Far left, how the Gazette reported the news, and, left, an artists impression of the development.

LIGHT FIGHT ... above, from the left, Ken Lynch, Olive Lynch, John Hall, Olive Fee and Jo Hall on Temple Park Road. Far left, how the Gazette reported the news, and, left, an artists impression of the development.

HOMEOWNERS seeking a “right to light” are on collision course with a housing developer.

Planners in South Tyneside gave the go-ahead for a three-storey, 18-apartment block in Temple Park Road, South Shields.

Residents living in bungalows 33 metres from the site claim it will “dwarf” their homes and remove their automatic right to sunlight and daylight.

The development – on the site of the former Denis Johnston Centre – is aimed at people over the age of 55.

Before launching possible legal action in a bid to block the flats being built, protestors urged the developer – Northumberland-based Bomarsund Housing Co-operative – to accept a compromise.

That centred on turning the building through 180 degrees, meaning its car park would then be closest to the bungalows – with the building 49 metres away.

But the plea has been dismissed by Morpeth-based solicitors Wholley Goodings, who are acting on behalf of the developer.

They want the threat of legal action removed “immediately” and have given a spokesman for the residents, John Hall, of Temple Park Road, a deadline of 4pm on Monday, January 20, to do so.

If that does not happen, the housebuilder says it will take legal action of its own.In a response to Mr Hall, a spokesman for the law firm, said: “Our clients are concerned about your threat of a legal injunction as they would be hesitant to embark on the development with the threat of an injunction outstanding.

“We would therefore invite you, for yourself and the other residents for whom you purport to represent, to withdraw the threat of injunction immediately.

“Failing that, we are instructed to take court proceedings for a declaration that the development will not infringe any rights to light.

“Not only would we be seeking, on behalf of our client, reimbursement of the legal costs of the proceedings, but also damages for any delay in the development or failure to proceed with the development.”

Mr Hall is now considering the implications.

He said: “What they are trying to do is use the threat of court action to scare us off. My neighbours are all extremely angry.

“The response is not only a bullying tactic, it is also factually not true. We did not make a threat.

“We called for a dialogue between ourselves and the company so we could avoid going down that route.”

Twitter: @shieldsgazpaul

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page