Problems with access to building plot

karenb33

My husband and I have recently purchased a piece of land to develop. The plot was previously 2 separate pieces of land which have now been brought together on one title deed. There is access from the north to a portion of the land and access from the south to the remainder of the land.

The owner of the access to the south is suggesting we can only use that access to utilise the specific area mentioned in the deed granting that access and we would need to amend the right to allow us to use the access to utilise the whole plot.

I am unsure of the legal position but it makes no practical sense to me. Surely once we are on our own land we can make use of it as we please?

Do anyone have any advice?

davidmcn

karenb33 wrote: »

I am unsure of the legal position but it makes no practical sense to me. Surely once we are on our own land we can make use of it as we please?

Well, it's the legal position which matters. Rights of access tend to be for the benefit of a defined property, or restricted to a particular use of that land.

To take things to extremes, if I grant you a right of access to use my driveway to access your house, that doesn't imply you can buy the field behind your house, develop that into a housing estate, and send all the new residents down my driveway.

What legal advice have you had about the title?

G_M

If you want a serious reply here you will need to quote, in full, the relevant Title document(s) and/or covenants.


No one here can guess exactly what they say..........!

PasturesNew

davidmcn wrote: »

To take things to extremes, if I grant you a right of access to use my driveway to access your house, that doesn't imply you can buy the field behind your house, develop that into a housing estate, and send all the new residents down my driveway.

I'll vote for this.

You do not own the access land - you are only allowed to use that access for particular uses and in particular ways, written down in the legal documents. You cannot arbitrarily do something different.

If you don't get it right now, you'll suffer in the longer term. The owner of the land has had the decency to point out to you your "problem" and how to resolve it. Take that free advice, doff your cap and thank your lucky stars you found out now.

Norman_Castle

This looks similar and seems to match what you have been told. http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html



Inherited right of way There are two entirely different situations to describe under this heading. 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.

karenb33

Many thanks for all the advice. The most recent post is absolutely where we are now - the advice we got when we purchased the land is totally contradictory to what the law appears to say. Back to the solicitors we go!!!

karenb33

davidmcn wrote: »

Well, it's the legal position which matters. Rights of access tend to be for the benefit of a defined property, or restricted to a particular use of that land.

To take things to extremes, if I grant you a right of access to use my driveway to access your house, that doesn't imply you can buy the field behind your house, develop that into a housing estate, and send all the new residents down my driveway.

What legal advice have you had about the title?

The only difference here is that it will only be us that uses the remainder of the plot - there is no additional traffic or anyone else using the right of way. I think the legal position is clear and we will need to negotiate with the owners of land over which we need to get access to allow us to use the whole of the plot. Not really what we need but so be it!

The legal advice was that we had a right of access - there was no mention that it was limited to the area on the plan. We will speak to the solicitors tomorrow - we will likely be making a claim against them.

Tom99

Norman_Castle wrote: »

This looks similar and seems to match what you have been told. http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/priv-r-o-w.html

Inherited right of way There are two entirely different situations to describe under this heading. 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.

Interesting. Suppose Mr Smith drives his tractor onto his new big field from South Lane and ploughs up and down over field A and B. Is he then prevented from leaving via South Lane? or North Lane? Or both?

unforeseen

No idea but I would think he has left himself open to a claim of trespass by both the owners of South and North lanes for exceeding what each ROW allowed

karenb33

It just seems such nonsense - if there is just one home on the land there will be no increase in the use of either of the accesses - and who is going to monitor it? If the owner just steps onto A after accessing from B - who knows?? It's a strange legal position.

AdrianC

But he would be using the South Lane RoW to access field A. He is not accessing field B via South Lane - there is no such physical access...

He is then accessing field B via field A. The owner of South Lane can't do anything to stop that, any more than he can stop any other legal use of field A or field B, or the legal use of the RoW from North Lane to access field B.

It's simple petulance on the behalf of the owner of the RoW.