Developer requires extensive access to our land (general advice welcome and wanted)

Doozergirl

That picture is bonkers.  

This can only be London, surely? 

Presumably next door have already refused access for anything, including skips.  

NicolaDod

Gavin83 said:

The developer potentially might have permission to access the site along the path. However they certainly don’t have the right to be putting skips on your land, putting wires/gates on your building and they certainly don’t have the right to be building permanent structures on your land.

Personally in your shoes and as someone who has lived next to a building site I wouldn’t be entertaining this at all.

Firstly I’d be contacting the planning department, letting them know that some of their planning conditions are impossible to implement as it requires the use of land they don’t own and you believe the path is inadequate for access. Tell them you believe the plot isn’t a viable piece of land for development and suggest they visit the site to assess this for themselves. This’ll never be resolved in 2 months so they’ll need to reapply anyway.

I suspect this isn’t a realistic building plot and if you cause enough of a problem it might never be built. Expect a fight as it’s likely to leave the developer seriously out of pocket but frankly that’s not your problem.

Thanks @Gavin83, yes this is a vital point. The initial plans were somewhat of a blindside as we purchased our flats off plan (originally estate agent told me the entire garden was to be split into four so that was a fight in itself). 

This meant that only I had moved in early enough to receive the notice and put in objections and I didn’t have much information to give good reason as to why it wouldn’t work, particularly as at the time the front and back plots were owned by the freeholder and I didn’t want to hand deliver him a list of agreements that we’d be bound to if we ever purchased the freehold. 

The plans were also submitted during our first UK lockdown which I believe to be the reason the case handler refused to send someone to the plot before deciding. 

Without exposing our location too much, the council have had significant financial issues, to the extent that the automated responses said that they may not get back to me at all (and they’ve certainly held true to that so far). 

But yes, as you say two months is not a lot of time so hopefully this will be easier object a second time around. 

It sounds like the consensus and most sensible option is to at least wait for the two months to run out before any final decision making. 

NicolaDod

kazwookie said:

I'd be getting an old banger of a car, an d parking it on your parking spot for now, an d refuse to move it.

How is the purchaser of this new build going to access the property?

The builder can bring in a water bouser.

I suggest a check with the local planing department to see what / how / when access / plan were grated and what they actually say.

As someone has already said get legal advise, does your house insurance cover this or one of the other 3 freeholders?

Thanks @kazwookie
Yes, I’m tempted to get a car in there as it feels easier to argue, especially if they decide to place the skip in front of the drive and I have to argue that it’s blocking a spot I don’t currently use. 

Yes one of the freeholders has legal advice cover so perhaps we can ask the developer to cover the excess and use this.

Grumpy_chap

NicolaDod said:

MikeJXE said:

NicolaDod said:

Alderbank said:

Without photos or a plan I'm struggling to understand the layout.
Is it anything like this?
If so, what borders the bungalow plot on the sides marked ?
Could the developer be in discussions with the owners of any of those boundaries?

Oh wow this is an almost exact drawing of the plan!

the standard walkway and access path are the same thing (access path is the correct positioning) 
The areas with question marks starting from the top and moving clockwise are
- next door neighbour garden
- back neighbour garden
- next door neighbour garden and car parking area. 

If the next door neighbour has a garden and car park area they must have a drive,

Why isn't the builder going in that way ? 

Yes sorry my shock at the accuracy of the drawing made me miss @Alderbank ‘s last point. 

Next door have one of those buildings that arch over a driveway and allow vehicles to drive through to the back. This would be a perfect access point for the developer, but they have refused access. Perhaps as again, it would impact parking spaces (that are frequently in use, pictured below)

Looks like the developer assumed access could be negotiated through the neighbouring car park, but that access is not now available so clutching at straws for any alternative.  

NicolaDod

theoretica said:

The planning permission plans - how close are the walls to your boundaries?  Will the new bungalow own outdoor space (which could be used for bin and bike) or will it be built right up to the boundaries - in which case the party wall act may mean that they should have informed you - and side/back neighbours if their boundaries are also being built up to.  And I think they are supposed to give two months notice before starting work.  Handy that...  Maybe worth talking to side/back neighbours too?

Yes the new bungalow has a small garden/patio within its plans that could be used for the bike, but I don’t know how the logistics would work for the bin as the bin collectors would need to pick it up from our drive each week. I guess they could pull it out to the street. 

I think one of the side neighbours would be against it as they’ve denied access to the plot via their land and have cars parked very close (I’ve now posted a picture in the thread) through strangely there were three letters of support, two from a back neighbouring address. I’d assumed a fellow developer who wanted the favour returned but I’ve not seen any applications since. 

NicolaDod

Doozergirl said:

That picture is bonkers.  

This can only be London, surely? 

Presumably next door have already refused access for anything, including skips.  

Got it in one! To be fair a couple of the builders scoping the job have expressed surprise that it even got planning permission, so perhaps there’s a chance to successfully object any re-submission. 

And yes that’s correct. I’ve never actually spoken to the next door neighbours but according to the developer, the block management agents denied any access at all.

To your point regarding the importance lying mostly with what’s on the deeds, we do have restrictive covenants (pre 1925) that state any building erected must have its front wall in line with the building line, which to me means nothing as far back as this plot. 

It’s a bit of a detail as I don’t know how much it will hold given the title has now been split and the covenants are so old, but it will definitely be something good to have a solicitor look at. 

Doozergirl

NicolaDod said:

Doozergirl said:

That picture is bonkers.  

This can only be London, surely? 

Presumably next door have already refused access for anything, including skips.  

Got it in one! To be fair a couple of the builders scoping the job have expressed surprise that it even got planning permission, so perhaps there’s a chance to successfully object any re-submission. 

And yes that’s correct. I’ve never actually spoken to the next door neighbours but according to the developer, the block management agents denied any access at all.

To your point regarding the importance lying mostly with what’s on the deeds, we do have restrictive covenants (pre 1925) that state any building erected must have its front wall in line with the building line, which to me means nothing as far back as this plot. 

It’s a bit of a detail as I don’t know how much it will hold given the title has now been split and the covenants are so old, but it will definitely be something good to have a solicitor look at. 

You can purchase indemnity insurance to cover old covenants.  It does depend on who that covenant can be enforced by. 

I would expect that there was a new raft of stipulations with the recent transfer of the freehold to you.  

I have built in my own yard and when we divided the plots and sold off our old house, we put restrictive covenants in place to protect us in the new house.   Your former freeholder should really have done similar for the benefit of the developer but it is possible that they didn't, or they missed something that could scupper the project, planning permission or not. This is unlikely if the developer did their own due diligence during the purchase, but you never know.  

I would have hoped that your own conveyancing did some similar homework.  

housebuyer143

I'm shocked they are expecting an owner to access the house through that tiny path with the fences like that. How are they getting down there with anything like shopping, pushchair, wheelchair. 
I would outrightly refuse all their requests and maybe they will be unable to build because as others have said, they shouldn't be relying on your water, land etc to build it.

Eldi_Dos

@NicolaDod
                       One thing to consider is what would happen to the site if the bungalow does not go ahead.It is unlikely the developer will just leave it to turn into a nature reserve.
If the site is in a busy urban area with a shortage of land it looks to be a ideal site for a mobile mast and associated cabinets and equipment.All they would need is a power supply and some ducts laid into site.The owner of such a site gets quite a good income from such.

As I say you have to consider if the bungalow if it were finished would add value and increase the amenity of your flat, even though there would be a lot of disturbance during build.

It is a shame you are faced with this hassle so soon after moving into your new flat.

NicolaDod

Gosh that’s made my stomach drop a bit, a mobile mast would be a nightmare. But this is exactly the sort of thing I need to consider before giving a definite no, what else would likely be built if not the bungalow.

You’re right @Eldi_Dos, the developer paid a lot for the plot and will not simply walk away, counting their losses.