Solicitor failed to spot massive planning application ...

G_M

Makes no sense (to me at least!):

nightsong wrote: »

The garage is owned freehold by the owner of the maisonette, though the maisonette itself is leasehold (999 year lease). Access is the issue. I agree that the lease should reveal this but the lease is "defective" according to the solicitor,

If the garage is freehold, and the maisonette is leasehold, then the there must be two quite separate Titles involved. You actually buying two things at once.

The lease to the maisonette would be unlikely to show any detail of the garage if the garage is on a separate freehold Title.

So you need to

* ignore the lease/maisonette
* examine the freehold title to the garage for any rights, responsibilities, covenants etc
* look at the access, and if it's not via public highway /adopted road, then determine who owns the land needed for access and what ROW the garage owner has over that land

lincroft1710

Have you meticulously studied the planning application, especially the proposed site, block and location plans? Because it is possible access has been provided for the garages. If not you should object pointing out the lack of access.

G_M

Makes no sense (to me at least!):

nightsong wrote: »

The garage is owned freehold by the owner of the maisonette, though the maisonette itself is leasehold (999 year lease). Access is the issue. I agree that the lease should reveal this but the lease is "defective" according to the solicitor,

If the garage is freehold, and the maisonette is leasehold, then the there must be two quite separate Titles involved. You actually buying two things at once.

The lease to the maisonette would be unlikely to show any detail of the garage if the garage is on a separate freehold Title.

So you need to

* ignore the lease/maisonette
* examine the freehold title to the garage for any rights, responsibilities, covenants etc
* look at the access, and if it's not via public highway /adopted road, then determine who owns the land needed for access and what ROW the garage owner has over that land

The vendor's solicitor is unlikely to be "a disgrace to the profession". He will have passed the query on to the vendors, who will have replied "We know of no relevant planning application" (which may or may not be true!), and thie solicitor will have passed that reply on to your solicitor in good faith.

Leaving you to rely on your own sensible enquiries.......

edit: sorry about the duplicate post - got myself in a mess an don't know how this forum works...........!

nightsong

No, he really is. Even the estate agent agrees. I've never seen anything so rude, arrogant and unprofessional from a solicitor. But I take your point - he can only rely on information from the vendor for many of the answers.

It's so obvious now that yes, the rights relating to the garage must attach to its freehold - not quite sure why OUR solicitor hasn't realised this ...

davidmcn

lincroft1710 wrote: »

it is possible access has been provided for the garages. If not you should object pointing out the lack of access.

That's not a planning consideration.

agrinnall

G_M wrote: »

edit: sorry about the duplicate post - got myself in a mess an don't know how this forum works...........!

Yes, that only comes after you hit 40,000 posts (or so I'm told)....

:rotfl:

lincroft1710

davidmcn wrote: »

That's not a planning consideration.

I thought the removal of a R-o-W without satisfactory replacement was grounds for objection

nightsong

Re the plans - there is a road that winds through the proposed estate and yes, it goes past the maisonette's garages (there are four in a block). But it's going to be a private development so presumably could be gated, and if the garage owners don't have a right of access they won't be able to get in. A lot of local parents currently park there for school drop off and collection, and I understand the site has recently been locked to prevent this - which means the shops and garage owners couldn't access their respective bays and garages for a few weeks (this info is from facebook, I suppose its true ...). The site owners may have been acting illegally or they may have been within their rights. I gather it's now unlocked but gated.

Bit of a mess, isn't it. Anyway, next step would seem to be to look at the freehold of the garage ...

davidmcn

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I thought the removal of a R-o-W without satisfactory replacement was grounds for objection

Maybe if it were a public right of way. But I think we're talking about a (probable) private right of property, which the garage owners can enforce irrespective of whether planning is involved.

HouseBuyer77

it goes past the maisonette's garages (there are four in a block). But it's going to be a private development so presumably could be gated, and if the garage owners don't have a right of access they won't be able to get in.

If a ROW currently exists they can't just extinguish it. Could be the road is planned like that exactly so access is still avaiable. In this case if they chose to gate you'd be entitled to a key.

I understand the site has recently been locked to prevent this - which means the shops and garage owners couldn't access their respective bays and garages for a few weeks (this info is from facebook, I suppose its true ...). The site owners may have been acting illegally or they may have been within their rights. I gather it's now unlocked but gated.

I wonder if the owner has been ignoring the land for years, letting people use it for whatever and now there's potential money in it for them start restricting access in order to claim it's always been that way and prevent any prescriptive rights from appearing which may reduce the value of the land to the developer (If you've been using something with a landowners permission you don't get extra rights even if you've been doing it for years, it's only when it's gone unchallenged for years that you can gain rights. If they say the gate has been there for years and it's occasionally locked they can say this proves they've been allowing the use of the land, bit of info here: http://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/prescriptive-easements.html).