Rights of way and planning permission

[whiskywill]

Could the maximum of five properties off one drive thing be correct

I live on a private road and my understanding of this is that more than five are allowed but then the road has to have a proper e.g. tarmac or similar surface, must have a pedestrian pavement and must have street lighting.

 

[Doug71]

I spoke with planning today and they did not seem at all interested, they just said it's a civil matter, nothing to do with them.

Looking like I am going to have to go down the route of solicitors letters

Doug

 

[Garno]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would really like to know how this ends.
Good luck I hope it ends well for you.

 

[MikeG.]

I spoke with planning today and they did not seem at all interested, they just said it's a civil matter, nothing to do with them.

Looking like I am going to have to go down the route of solicitors letters

Doug

You've missed the point, Doug. I've said in every post that they wouldn't be interested, but the point is if you can get the Planning Application rejected the problem goes away even if the legal situation doesn't change. That is your simplest and cheapest way of securing the result you want. Pursue the solicitor thing as well, by all means, but an objection to the planning application will cost you nothing other than time........and it doesn't have to mention the access dispute at all (although it might be useful if it did). Object on every possible planning grounds you can think of (loss of amenity and loss of privacy are the two obvious starting points).

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I'm not sure about that W2S. Getting planning permission to build across the access wouldn't legally remove that right of access. It would practically remove it, but then leave the OP vulnerable to court action for blocking that access. Again, planning departments don't have a lot of interest in the legalities, so it is perfectly possible for them to grant permission for something which would (for non-planning reasons) be illegal to build.

Hi Mike - yes - but the OP doesn't necessarily have to implement the planning permission (or could partly implement it e.g. dig footings to prevent it expiring). Having permission would put the owner of the other property on the back foot, to some extent, in any event. I believe that there are legal precedents for easement being effectively 'extinguished' by lawful development of one sort or another. My neighbour has a right of way past my front door, but my other neighbour blocked that by building an office across it(!) so the right of way was effectively extinguished - it's a complicated legal area.
http://www.quinnlaw.co.uk/how-a-right-o ... n-be-lost/

Cheers, W2S

 

[Doug71]

Mike, I took what you said on board but I am ever the optimist, realised I was probably wasting my time when I read on the planning website that boundary disputes, private covenants etc are not normally considered.

I really don't want to inflame the situation so my current thinking is a letter from my solicitor to his solicitor and agent pointing out that the right of way is only for my father in case they are not aware might be the best way to go, maybe they can then advise him accordingly.

My father loves confrontation and if I object to the application it will probably make the situation worse so saving that as a last resort.

 

[shed9]

Mike, I took what you said on board but I am ever the optimist, realised I was probably wasting my time when I read on the planning website that boundary disputes, private covenants etc are not normally considered.

I really don't want to inflame the situation so my current thinking is a letter from my solicitor to his solicitor and agent pointing out that the right of way is only for my father in case they are not aware might be the best way to go, maybe they can then advise him accordingly.

My father loves confrontation and if I object to the application it will probably make the situation worse so saving that as a last resort.

Totally agree.

Simply objecting to planning on every possible grounds to cease the application will achieve nothing and likely make it worse. Besides, planning approval may actually resolve the ongoing issue if it makes the land saleable to someone else. Reading between the lines it looks like confrontation on your fathers part is potentially a major factor of this situation in the first place.

If it progresses to planing and does indeed identify the right of way in question as a main entrance then specific objection to this one aspect has the potential to clarify this from a planning perspective and all subsequent potential applications. Yes they are not interested in civil disputes but they do consider rights of way in terms of pedestrian / vehicular access, albeit this is usually concerned with the creation or removal (extinguishment) of rights of way. With this in mind a sound argument could be made highlighting the express temporary nature of the right of way (backed up by prior dispatched solicitor letters) meaning planning approval would need to consider reasonably sustainability of that access beyond your father (which it can't).

 

[MikeG.]

Mike, I took what you said on board but I am ever the optimist, realised I was probably wasting my time when I read on the planning website that boundary disputes, private covenants etc are not normally considered..........

Doug, you really don't seem to be understanding. Objecting to the planning application is nothing whatsoever to do with the access dispute. Nothing at all. Get the application turned down because it's purple, or because of the unicorn noises that it will generate.......whatever........ and your problem has gone away.

 

[HappyHacker]

When it comes to planning you need to look for your local plan and see what grounds you may have for objecting. They will only pay attention to objections that are on planning grounds any thing else they will ignore. If the access on/off the road is difficult then raise the issue. Will any of your neighbours be affected, if so get them involved, they will ned to object individually rather than sign a petition.
Good luck.

 

[NikNak]

Doug, you really don't seem to be understanding. Objecting to the planning application is nothing whatsoever to do with the access dispute. Nothing at all. Get the application turned down because it's purple, or because of the unicorn noises that it will generate.......whatever........ and your problem has gone away.

MikeG... true.... and then he just puts another application in.... #-o

I've been reading this with interest as we've recently put in for planning permission to build a new end terrace house on what is now the (concreted over) garden of an end terrace that we own and have rented out. There were a total of 12 objections ranging from access over private ground, a magnolia tree, noise from the builders, people who did the same in another adjacent terrace broke a main sewer pipe, loss of wildlife nesting and.... greed. These were ALL ignored by the planning officer as they were ALL civil issues and nothing to do with 'planning' issues.

Theres a LOT of building going on around us at the moment (within a 3 mile radius in excess of 5,000 new homes..!!) and one thing we have noticed is.... the 'old' reasons for complaining i.e. lack of this or that, more noise, more traffic, privacy, light etc just dont wash any more. But there does seem to be a big rise in the ecological issues to the environment (we've had to give a unilateral undertaking to pay £X,000 to the local council to cover god knows what :-k if ours gets approved) so if it were me i'd get me wellies on and go looking for crested newts that are cohabiting with double winged bats living in an old oak tree that has a preservation order on it, or 'find' :wink: some artifacts of historical interest and that the site needs to be thoroughly investigated first... which may take years...

Nick

 

[Inoffthered]

If there is a problem with the ROW wording and a suggestion that the lawyers that drafted it did not do a very good job I suggest going back to the solicitors responsible saying that there is now an issue over their wording.
This will do 2 things, alert them to the fact that there may be a complaint against them and they would have to advise their professional indemnity insurers of a notifiable event and given that, they may be inclined to assist in resolving the matter on an attractive fee basis.