Interesting story about a buyer sueing a vendor over PP for next door

dopester

I didn't go looking for that story. Just found it by accident.

Also I doubt that reader's comment is entirely correct, but also don't think the claimant has much of a case either.

Must be stressful for older vendor couple.. even if they have escaped from the market with a huge fortune of easy HPI profit.

redlady_1

magpiecottage wrote: »

If it is a right of way then it will get used - that is just part of the deal if you live in the countryside, along with the smells, the oilseed rape in the spring and the snow and ice that the council don't clear.

If you don't like it you should live in the town and put up with all the road noise and air and light pollution instead.

This is an unfortunately problem of people who have no concept of country life, moving out and then complaining when it doesn't live up to their unrealistic expectations.

In relation to my other point, just what do these searches cover if not the surrounding area?

farmerboy

chucknorris wrote: »

Well found! I noted from the one of the comments on the article:

Actually to those of you who say the planning apps would have been made available are wrong. Farmers do not need to need to apply for planning permission they are covered under the agriculture ties to their properties they can erect farm buildings, put up fencing, put in roads etc whereever they like if its the benefit of their farm.

Which would make it rather difficult for their solicitor (and obviously the vendor) to be aware well in advance that this road was going to be built. Something to be aware of if buying in a rural area and the house is near to the border with a farm.

Not strictly true, the fence part yes, if the track wasn't used before then PP would have been required for a new access. An for buildings you can erect 465sqm under permitted developments every 2 yrs, but it can't be within 500m of any other dwelling other that your own and not for livestock otherwise full PP is required.

chucknorris

dopester wrote: »

I didn't go looking for that story. Just found it by accident.

Also I doubt that reader's comment is entirely correct, but also don't think the claimant has much of a case either.

Must be stressful for older vendor couple.. even if they have escaped from the market with a huge fortune of easy HPI profit.

They look like a couple that are used to having their own way and don't like it when things go against them (who does, but life has to go on). Hopefully the vendor couple will be well reassured by their barrister

chucknorris

farmerboy wrote: »

Not strictly true, the fence part yes, if the track wasn't used before then PP would have been required for a new access. An for buildings you can erect 465sqm under permitted developments every 2 yrs, but it can't be within 500m of any other dwelling other that your own and not for livestock otherwise full PP is required.

Thanks, I merely copied it from the article, I am not pretending I know anything about planning (I don't). But handy to know as eventually we will be moving to a rural area. Could it be that the track was previously accessed by a landrover (or that they 'claimed' it was accessed by a landrover?)

martindow

This is the Daily Mail! I'm sure we have a partial account here to make a better story.