Boundary row over Red Lion Lane in Overton continues

Basingstoke Gazette: Graham Gould Graham Gould

THE owners of a new home, which has been the subject of a planning battle, say they are fed up of an ongoing wrangle over where their property has been built.

The matter of 43 Red Lion Lane in Overton was discussed again by Overton Parish Council, which is to write to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council asking why no enforcement action has been taken. The councillors claim the house has encroached on to the Edward Kersley Playing Field – which is leased to the parish council from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The borough council has agreed to erect and pay for a fence to separate the property from the playing field.

But the new occupants, Angela and Graham Gould, say they are fed up with the row. Mr Gould, 62, pictured, said the parish council’s pursuit of the matter was “a gross abuse of public funds with no genuine positive outcome for the public interest”.

The father-of-four said the row was about a bank, right, which is steep and unusable. At the parish council meeting on January 9, a resident of Red Lion Lane – Sarah Mills – claimed the building of the property has resulted in a problem with parking along the street. Parish council chairman Tom Ridler said the council could not get involved in parking disputes.

But Overton borough councillor Paula Baker said: “I want to share the frustration of this. Through a series of planning applications, we were all led to expect that the outcome in relation to parking spaces and garden areas was going to be rather different than it has turned out, and I’m sorry that, having asked enforcement officers to look into it, they have come back and said there’s nothing they can do.”

Cllr Lucy Sloane Williams added: “The planning process has led to difficulties at community level so the borough council really are negligent.”

Councillors agreed to write to Tony Curtis, chief executive of the borough council, asking why enforcement action on the boundary has not been carried out.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that in May 2011 the borough council asked for the boundary to be reinstated as “a matter of urgency” or “further legal action” would be taken. But on Tuesday this week, borough communications officer Sophia Waite-King said Basingstoke and Deane council would not be taking any enforcement action in connection with the property.

Previously, Steve Smith, of DGS Developments, which built the property, said the position of the boundary had been agreed with a borough surveyor, and suggestions that it was incorrect by six feet were part of a “personal vendetta”.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:12pm Mon 21 Jan 13

SarahRLL says...

The parking is a separate issue to the bank at the back. The Goulds have taken over an adjoining plot of land to the side- which they know does not belong to them - and are forcing the previous users to park in the road. They have chosen not to discuss it with their neighbours. They knew about the issue with the bank and the parking arrangements before they bought the property.
The parking is a separate issue to the bank at the back. The Goulds have taken over an adjoining plot of land to the side- which they know does not belong to them - and are forcing the previous users to park in the road. They have chosen not to discuss it with their neighbours. They knew about the issue with the bank and the parking arrangements before they bought the property. SarahRLL
  • Score: 0

12:11am Tue 22 Jan 13

Mighty Antar says...

It is the decimation of the hedgerow that lay on top of the bank between the playing field and the site that should not be allowed to go unchecked. The wasteland on view behind Mr Gould in the photograph will take decades to return to anything like it's previous state.The way developers rip out such boundarys now, we should be slapping preservation orders on hedgerows in the same way that we list buildings.
It is the decimation of the hedgerow that lay on top of the bank between the playing field and the site that should not be allowed to go unchecked. The wasteland on view behind Mr Gould in the photograph will take decades to return to anything like it's previous state.The way developers rip out such boundarys now, we should be slapping preservation orders on hedgerows in the same way that we list buildings. Mighty Antar
  • Score: 0

8:43am Tue 22 Jan 13

Best_Name_Ever says...

SarahRLL, was the parking just informal parking for people living/visiting the area or was it specifically allocated for people? Whoever owns it surely can say whether or not the Goulds can use it?
SarahRLL, was the parking just informal parking for people living/visiting the area or was it specifically allocated for people? Whoever owns it surely can say whether or not the Goulds can use it? Best_Name_Ever
  • Score: 0

8:54am Tue 22 Jan 13

JJ38JJ says...

Perhaps the Goulds should have done their homework before buying the property. Did their conveyancer (sp?) not flag up any potential problems prior to signing contracts. Whenever I have moved house my conveyancer has always done this even when the potential problem is acceptable.
Perhaps the Goulds should have done their homework before buying the property. Did their conveyancer (sp?) not flag up any potential problems prior to signing contracts. Whenever I have moved house my conveyancer has always done this even when the potential problem is acceptable. JJ38JJ
  • Score: 0

8:33am Wed 23 Jan 13

Darley21 says...

The parking dispute aside I find it insulting that the Gould’s complain about a (I quote) “gross abuse of public funds with no genuine positive outcome for the public interest”. The Gould’s have raised a freedom of information for all correspondence relating to the development which clearly would cost both the Borough and Parish councils a substantial amount of money?
The parking dispute aside I find it insulting that the Gould’s complain about a (I quote) “gross abuse of public funds with no genuine positive outcome for the public interest”. The Gould’s have raised a freedom of information for all correspondence relating to the development which clearly would cost both the Borough and Parish councils a substantial amount of money? Darley21
  • Score: 0

9:08am Wed 23 Jan 13

TwoPencePiece says...

Was it the Goulds who asked for the Freddom of Information though? It may have been the Gazzette or a third party who was interested - maybe the neighbours.
Was it the Goulds who asked for the Freddom of Information though? It may have been the Gazzette or a third party who was interested - maybe the neighbours. TwoPencePiece
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree