Stubbin Lane – The Saga Goes On In Court


So RMBC have made an application to Sheffield Magistrates’ Court under S116 of the Highways Act (1980) Why? The Legal Notice plan and application intends to stop up Stubbin Lane Highway (extinguish the highway rights) by ‘regularising and realigning the edges.’

No further explanation was made to the public in the RMBC Legal Notice, application and newspapers or in letters to some residents. In fact, the letter has baffled, confused and distressed residents.

It turns out that RMBC is applying on behalf of a resident who in 2010, significantly extended his home, encroaching the Stubbin Lane highway and also with a later second rear extension.

Was RMBC‘s public ploy to take the spotlight away from this resident whom they are acting for by asking ‘to regularise the edges’ of the whole of Stubbin Lane Highway?

In summary

1) Significant side extension and fence erected, obstructing the highway Sept 2010 – Feb 2011

In July 2011, RMBC grants Retrospective Planning Permission and Change of Land use acknowledging ‘it is the highway’ and conditional upon the resident gaining a Stopping up Order under S247 Highways Act (1990)

2) Resident waits a year (and 11 months since the extension was started) before making an application to the Department of Transport.

Rejected after Public Inquiry in November 2011, brought by HOSL.

3) Legal Notice served on RMBC by HOSL for breaching Statutory Highway duty May 2012.

As a result, RMBC serve Legal Notice of Enforcement upon the resident to rectify within eight weeks then promptly forget about it. June 2012

4) Councillors make objections and meet RMBC solicitor who sits on his hands. Nov 2013

5) RMBC attempt to apply for SUO under S116 Highways Act (1980) on behalf of the resident

In May 2015. HOSL alerted by ward councillors.

HOSL makes formal complaint about poor processes, officer behaviours and the continuous failure to enforce. May 2015 onwards.

6) Cross Party (and Ward) councillors make formal objections to Lead Commissioner 2015 – 16.

Leader of the Opposition 2016 takes up ‘Representation of the People’.

7) RMBC prepare application on behalf of the resident for a SUO under S116 in June 2017 and RMBC apply for full hearing at Sheffield Magistrates Court Jan 30th 2018

If you object to our highways, public land and amenities being misappropriated for private gain, this is what to do.

Contact Rothpol by email in the first instance, including your address and a phone number. You will then be provided with an information pack, which will inform you of the process. We are able to help you through it, you will be supported should you need help.

Time is short! Please respond asap, but before 11 am Monday 6th February.

If you are unable to become an objector, or have missed the tight deadline, you may wish to leave a comment giving your views on the misappropriation of public land and amenities.

Friends of Stubbin Lane

Further information:

Report from the magistrates directions hearing:

03 Feb 18__STUBBIN LANE Summary of court on 30 Jan 18. pdf

RMBC  plan showing Stubbin Lane and realignment:

17 July 17_Stubbin Lane RRJ Final A3 Version For Legal 17 07 2017-Model

RMBC preliminary legal notice of application:

2017_Stubbin Lane preliminary legal notice_RJ1

HOSL Combined planning application/deeds of residents presented to public inquiry November 2012

HoSL Plan A_Rear extn II

12 thoughts on “Stubbin Lane – The Saga Goes On In Court

  1. Is there any trace left of the Labour Party in RMBC – or have the politicians now clearly demonstrated that they are really tories ? Who is really in control in RMBC, the unelected officers whose duty is to serve, or those elected on the basis of the ( misplaced ) trust of electors ?


  2. most r just interlopers tryin to wear labour clothes but self serving, they dunt even act as labour with their tory lite policies. they are disgrace to the labour party


    • SW
      ‘Not Fit for Purpose’ Clumpy Emma Hoddinott is the one in the frame.
      Clumpy is costing the council tax payers eye watering sums over this 8 year old saga of a resident who deliberately took Stubbin Lane in as his own and decided that before they had moved into the property. Well over 100 people heard the resident’s admission in the Public Inquiry 2012 where the resident’s application for a Stopping Up Order under S247 Highways act (1990) failed.
      Clumpy is prepared even now to spend vast sums of council tax payers hard earned money now to mislead the public and remain manipulated and hoodwinked.
      Clumpy wants us country bumpkins (she thinks) to believe that the good people of Rotherham are not bright enough to see through her gross incompetence and of her officers. RMBC wants us all to think it is only about ‘realignment’ in order to divert attention away from the offending resident. After all, wasn’t the resident the one who deliberately built on the highway?
      ‘Realigning the edges of both sides of Stubbin Lane’ means the removal and transfer of all utilities from those edges to being relocated under the remaining highway and for no valid reason at all. That is only one eye watering cost to the public purse to date and now Legal Services have joined the fray and are acting for the resident. You couldn’t make it up. Unlawful council and unlawful obstruction. Oh dear.
      Why such a dreamt up, crackpot, money guzzling project which achieves absolutely nothing and messing about with the whole of Stubbin Lane? When will she and officers ‘grow a pair’ and uphold their statutory duty.
      RMBC must be definitely hiding something very nasty about themselves…..not least incompetence and failure to comply with the law. Seem to remember Dame Louise Casey
      reporting that as a main finding in her report of the ‘Inspection of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Feb 2015.
      Heard that Clumpy and Damien Wilson are not on speaking terms at any time.


  3. Classic RMBC – it’s too much like a problem to do what they are required to do by law, so they stick their heads in the sand and try their very best to circumnavigate their responsibilities.


  4. I beleive this was cocked up by Carl Battersby and the ever efficient Legal department who thought if we leave it long enough they could get it through without any one noticing
    But not sure if it was a deliberate mistake or not ?


  5. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 10th February 2018 | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.