vicky whitworth
Member
- Messages
- 632
- Location
- East Devon
What do you chaps think about this?
A planning application has gone in to build a three bed house in the small garden of an 18th c cottage in the conservation area of Chardstock. The existing old cottage has a right of way over a neighbour's land to access its garage ie: a vehicular right of way for the use of the cottage. It is proposed that the new house will use the same access. The neighbour's lawyer says the new house doesn't have a right of way. The right of way belongs to the old cottage, and therefore there will be no way of accessing the new house as the neighbour isn't going to give permission. The person who's made the application owns the old cottage and seems to take the view that the new house owner will use the neighbour's land to access the new house.
Surely this can't be right. People can't simply state they want to access across your land without a legal easement to do so, can they? I guess it's not a planning issue although there seems little point in approving what is yet another hideous new build when it has no access.
Part of the case that the applicant is putting forward is that on the site there used to be 5 terraced cottages which were pulled down in the 1940s. His case is that therefore he is putting back what was once there. This seems crazy to me. If there used to be an Iron Age hill fort on my land would that give me an argument for a three bedroom house? And if he's so keen on 'restoring the old village street scene' (I quote from the planning application) why isn't he proposing a row of terraces rather than a whacking house?
It makes my blood boil.
A planning application has gone in to build a three bed house in the small garden of an 18th c cottage in the conservation area of Chardstock. The existing old cottage has a right of way over a neighbour's land to access its garage ie: a vehicular right of way for the use of the cottage. It is proposed that the new house will use the same access. The neighbour's lawyer says the new house doesn't have a right of way. The right of way belongs to the old cottage, and therefore there will be no way of accessing the new house as the neighbour isn't going to give permission. The person who's made the application owns the old cottage and seems to take the view that the new house owner will use the neighbour's land to access the new house.
Surely this can't be right. People can't simply state they want to access across your land without a legal easement to do so, can they? I guess it's not a planning issue although there seems little point in approving what is yet another hideous new build when it has no access.
Part of the case that the applicant is putting forward is that on the site there used to be 5 terraced cottages which were pulled down in the 1940s. His case is that therefore he is putting back what was once there. This seems crazy to me. If there used to be an Iron Age hill fort on my land would that give me an argument for a three bedroom house? And if he's so keen on 'restoring the old village street scene' (I quote from the planning application) why isn't he proposing a row of terraces rather than a whacking house?
It makes my blood boil.