Michael Hoffman said:
Ian wrote:

So a summary would be:

1) You want to develop your land.

2) Your neighbours were opposed to this.

3) You have nevertheless received planning permission.

4) To proceed you need access rights over their land.

The only correction I would make is that the land does not belong to the
same neighbours who were opposed. It belongs to the housing trust, who,
according to the OP might otherwise give him access, but are not because
the neighours are opposed.

I am not sure he said that and instead stated that the owner gave their
reasons for denying access to be that the neighbours object. He did say
that the owner had said they would have consented were it not for the
neighbour's objections.

wrote in
Hi,
I have recently been granted planning permission to a plot of land
loads of money and 3 years to finally get this granted.
The access to my building plot is currently an unadopted highway owned
by the local council

Council = councillors. Like, these 'elected officials'who sit on a committee
and allow planning applications...

I have asked the local housing trust to grant me access to my plot but
they are objecting on the grounds that the local residents are
objecting.

Housing trusts know what needs to be done to get what they want done done.
If that makes sense. We're back to local politicians.


So although the planning process has been completely fair and
democratic

Hmmm

I get to the position of access rights and get refused

You mean the planing commitee can grant planing permission for land to which
there is no access?

upon the whim of a few jealous neighbours.

That could be a problem in a marginal ward.

Of course I am willing to pay for the access, via easement or a lump
sum

Tried bribery? My brothers ex was the daughter of a *&%^ who sat on a
planning committee somewhere up north. All about 'making friends and
influencing people'.

Have I a legal standpoint on this?

Politics... Plenty of politicians have a legal background.

"Bert" wrote in message
...
Michael Hoffman said:
Ian wrote:

So a summary would be:

1) You want to develop your land.

2) Your neighbours were opposed to this.

3) You have nevertheless received planning permission.

4) To proceed you need access rights over their land.

The only correction I would make is that the land does not belong to the
same neighbours who were opposed. It belongs to the housing trust, who,
according to the OP might otherwise give him access, but are not because
the neighours are opposed.

I am not sure he said that and instead stated that the owner gave their
reasons for denying access to be that the neighbours object. He did say
that the owner had said they would have consented were it not for the
neighbour's objections.

Presumably the Housing Association have balanced the competing claims of you
and the neighbours. Of course, neighbours might object to anything going on
in a neighbouring piece of land and presumably it is up to the owner to
decide.

I would imagine that the opposing neighbours might not have been too happy
with the HA development. The HA and its residents have shown that they are
good neighbours and they have decided that they would rather maintain their
relationship with their current neighbours than go along with your wishes.

Nick

Owain wrote:
Jez T wrote:
I get to the position of access rights and get refused
You mean the planing commitee can grant planing permission for land
to which there is no access?

The issue appears to be that there is access, but it is across land
over which the OP does not have right of access. That is a matter for
the OP's lawyers and the owners of the land, not the planning
authority. They *might* ask for evidence that easements etc are in
place before granting detailed permission, but they might not.

There are certainly cases of people who've lived in houses for decades
suddenly finding that the verge which they thought they owned, or was
owned by the council, is owned by someone else who starts demanding
payment for access. Sometimes this is from people who've bought up
'manorial rights' or similar.

Owain

Planning permission can be given for land you don't even own.

Mark BR

"Mark BR" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Owain wrote:
Jez T wrote:
I get to the position of access rights and get refused
You mean the planing commitee can grant planing permission for land
to which there is no access?

The issue appears to be that there is access, but it is across land
over which the OP does not have right of access. That is a matter for
the OP's lawyers and the owners of the land, not the planning
authority. They *might* ask for evidence that easements etc are in
place before granting detailed permission, but they might not.

There are certainly cases of people who've lived in houses for decades
suddenly finding that the verge which they thought they owned, or was
owned by the council, is owned by someone else who starts demanding
payment for access. Sometimes this is from people who've bought up
'manorial rights' or similar.

Owain

Planning permission can be given for land you don't even own.

I knew that. Can a different developer other than the applicant of the
planning permission take advantage of that planning permission?

I presume that another developer take the plan accepted and modify it (maybe
slightly) and submit as their own.

I presume that more than one application can be made for the same site.

After all, only the owner of the land can develop the land.

Just thinking out loud.

Nick

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:25:03 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

After all, only the owner of the land can develop the land.

Hardly. Can does not mean may and owner does not mean lawful occupant.

Yes, but IANAL. I understand the first and I don't understand the second.
Again IANAL.

Thanks

Nick

Nick wrote:
"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:25:03 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

After all, only the owner of the land can develop the land.
Hardly. Can does not mean may and owner does not mean lawful occupant.

Yes, but IANAL. I understand the first and I don't understand the second.

Someone, say, leasing the land, may develop the land.

In article ,
Nick wrote:
After all, only the owner of the land can develop the land.

Notwithstanding the various provisions for compulsory purchase.

-patrick.

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:25:03 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

After all, only the owner of the land can develop the land.
Hardly. Can does not mean may and owner does not mean lawful occupant.

Yes, but IANAL. I understand the first and I don't understand the second.

Someone, say, leasing the land, may develop the land.


Thanks

Nick