Buying right of access

matttye

Stuart1918 wrote: »

I've spoken to the council and not only is very unlikely to get planning permission for anything in the next few years at least (including a home office), he also isn't allowed to use the land as he intends for storing work vehicles as the land is residential.

So charging £25k to extinguish the right of access is extortionate when the land is for all intents and purposes worthless.

That means even if you extinguish the easement that's in the deeds, he will still have an easement by necessity as the only way onto his land is over your land.

You can't do what you want to do until such time as he builds another access.

moneyistooshorttomention

Stuart1918 wrote: »

I've spoken to the council and not only is very unlikely to get planning permission for anything in the next few years at least (including a home office), he also isn't allowed to use the land as he intends for storing work vehicles as the land is residential.

So charging £25k to extinguish the right of access is extortionate when the land is for all intents and purposes worthless.

Well - not quite "worthless" - as he could always use it as extra garden space.

Just not worth as much - considering that what he is allowed to use it for is so restricted.

tunnel

Is there a gate on your drive?
If not then put one on but don't lock it(denying ROA) but insist that while ever he uses his right of access he must at all times close the gate(not unreasonable as it's securing your property). He'll soon get !!!!!! off with having to open and close it everytime he uses it, more so when it's chucking it down outside. Wait a few years and then offer him a couple grand for the ROA.

unforeseen

However there is nothing to make him close the gate (see various threads on here about ROWs and gates). I think the OP will get p**sed off with closing it themselves first especially as they will be the major user

tunnel

unforeseen wrote: »

However there is nothing to make him close the gate (see various threads on here about ROWs and gates). I think the OP will get p**sed off with closing it themselves first especially as they will be the major user

Only going from experience, I use my gate daily...open and close it and prefer the added security. If the OP finds it an inconvenience then maybe just leave things as they are as they obviously aren't that bothered about the added security.
And if we're being pedantic, just put a self closer on the gate then they have to get out to open it, at least doing away with the problem of the gate being left open.

unforeseen

Self closer on a vehicle access? Asking for damage claims doing that. Or it gets wedged open.

Stuart1918

Hi Mattye, I don't think he would technically need to build another access as his home is on the land next to it. He would however need to produce a new easement for access to the land, which considering he owns both plots should be easy enough.

AdrianC

Stuart1918 wrote: »

Hi Mattye, I don't think he would technically need to build another access as his home is on the land next to it. He would however need to produce a new easement for access to the land, which considering he owns both plots should be easy enough.

Given that he owns both plots of land, I don't think he would need to do any paperwork - unless he was considering selling one and wanted a right of access to remain.

Stuart1918

That's not technically true, legally him owning both pieces of land is irrelevant (from Boundary Problems site - http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html):

Situation 1 concerns two fields, 'A' and 'B' that are contiguous with each other.

A right of way over South Lane was granted to benefit the land in field 'A' at a time when field 'A' was owned by Mr Smith. Completely separately, a right of way over North Lane was granted to benefit the land in field 'B' at a time when field 'B' was owned by Mr Jones.

Mr Jones (or strictly speaking, field 'B') does not enjoy a right of way over South Lane and Mr Smith (or strictly speaking, field 'A') does not enjoy a right of way over North Lane.

At a later date, Mr Smith purchased field 'B', which is contiguous with field 'A'. Mr Smith now owns all of the land connecting the end of North Lane with the end of South Lane. However, Mr Smith is not, by law, allowed to use South Lane as a means of access to field 'B', nor is he allowed to use North Lane as a means of access to field 'A'.

The right of way over South Lane is enjoyed only by the land that was identified in the Deed of Grant as the dominant tenement, ie by field 'A'. Field 'B' is not a dominant tenement relative to South Lane, and so South Lane may not be used as a means of access to field 'B'. Similarly, field 'A' is not a dominant tenement in relation to North Lane.

Stuart1918

So he would need to firstly create a new right of way both physically and with the necessary legal paperwork before he could offer me the opportunity to extinguish the right of way through my land. Otherwise he could still claim a right of way over my land by necessity.

Once he had opened up a second right of way, his argument that extinguishing the one through my land halves the value of his land is completely null & void.

So ultimately it's a frank conversation to point out how wrong he is (in the most diplomatic manner possible) and then wait to see what happens.