ScooBStu

We own the road in front of our house and there is an access right to the guy who owns the field at the bottom. There is currently being 4 houses built in the field.

They have only been digging the field out for two days and already the road is damaged and filthy. I know the have a right to access the field but surely they cant keep damaging my land in this way. Does anyone have any views or know where I would stand on this?

Also in our deeds it states that two houses could be built on the land and have access - They are now building 4 and although planning permission has been granted does anyone know where we stand as there is going to be four houses built.

I am also a little concerned that I will be still paying for the upkeep of the road when more traffic is using it.

Anyone got any experience on any of the above.

Cheers

mart360

get to a solicitor pronto!!!

if pp for 4 has been passed when deeds say only 2, you can prolly ecpext the the council has a hand in it!!

why didnt you object when you had the chance??

Mart

richardg

check your title again. a common courtesy thing if nothing else, but you would expect most rights of way to refer to "subject to the contribution of a fair proportion of any repair and maintenance costs. if you own the land, check it out

did you sell the land? or an owner before you perhaps? if so and the restrictive covenant (if that's what you're referring to) was put on the land by you/previous owner, then you have a right to claim (ie either cash to clear your claim or injunction to prevent the develoment proceeding)

PM me if you want to 'talk' (by email) through it - i work for a property developer and have a reasonable amount of experience with title issues/covenants

richardg

title and planning issues are two very different animals. "deeds" can say what they like, if there;s nobody around to contest a restrictive covenant then there's nobody to enforce it. also worth noting that if planning applications are approved, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone has the ability (legally) to access it or to sell it - if you build contrary to a covenant and the person with the benefit of the covenant still lives next door, no insurance company will insure the risk and thefore the homes can't be sold or even remortgaged

bit of a minefiled if you don't protect your interests

Fuzz

/\ /\ /\ /\
What I was thinking.


Also, exactly what dis-service is the road being dirty (and damaged)actually doing you?
Will it need repairing after they have used it.
If they don't clean it / repair it, send them the bill.


Andy

ScooBStu

We bought the house knowing they had planning permission - The planning department told me that although they had granted PP this did not mean they had access. Also the council civils guy actually tried to prevent the build due to more than 5 houses being fed from one private road.

We have had no consultation about the road usage at all or who will share costs etc.

So I have the right to prevent access to the land? Do I need to get in contact with the people building?

I would definitelly like to have a chat with you about it Richard G. PM will be sent - Cheers.

richardg

stu - look up stokes v cambridge. this is a famous case relating to access rights/issues

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Oh yeah, you REALLY want to read up on the Stokes V Cambridge ruling!!!!

This is an example...

5. Recent court cases have served to remind landowners of the fact that prescriptive rights of vehicular access cannot normally be acquired over common, and similar, land. They have also drawn attention to the charges that landowners might make for granting rights of access, which are usually a percentage of the value of the premises.





There is a precedent on the issue of compensation for granting an easement. Following a court case (Stokes v Cambridge Corporation) some 40 years ago the Lands Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the landowner as 30% of the development value of the land served by the access. Current valuation practice is that the cost of such easements can be between one-third and one-half of the difference in value of the premises with and without a statutory access. As a rule of thumb, this calculation can give rise to a payment of as much as 10% of the value of the premises, valued with the right of access. This could be a very substantial sum.

Leslie

All down to Fatty Two ***** probably.

Les

ScooBStu

Thank you for all your help. I have searched google and read things relating to the case of stokes v cambridge, however it would be useful if someone could point me in the direction of the full notes or a website which describes the case in full.

Is there a website which details this kind of information.

Cheers in advance.

Stuart.

CrisPDuk

Try a solicitor, he should be able to point in the right direction

ScooBStu

and empty my wallet for the priveledge!!!

Fuzz

but it's a dam site more reliable than the info that you are likely to get off of here.


Andy

richardg

not necessarily, but at least you know where your solicitor works, who he is and that you can sue him if he gives you bad advice!
stu - try the RICS web site (www.rics.org). you should find something in their bookshop which will help