Can anyone get their head around this situation?

loubel

It could be that the same person owns the house and the 
equestrian centre and so did not require a legal right of access for themself and has no interest in helping a future owner to obtain this. If this is correct, the lender would presumably be taking action against their solicitors for not advising them of this before lending against it. Or kicking themselves for not taking heed of a solicitor warning...

propertyrental

Could a buyer not claim an implied Easement of Necessity?

https://www.hartbrown.co.uk/latest-news/easements-what-are-they-and-what-do-they-mean-for-your-property/

secla

Sounds like a bit of a nightmare, either they wanted to buy it for themselves or they have had a serious disagreement with the current owner and want to make it difficult and for them to not get a good market price.
plus the fact there seems to be some kind of sitting tennant

Grumpy_chap

adzy77 said:

The Property is land locked and does not enjoy any rights of access over the driveway leading from the public highway.

The adjoining owner will not grant any such rights of access and, in the event that a purchaser of the Property attempts to gain access over the driveway, the adjoining owner will seek an injunction preventing access from being gained over their land.

The Property does not enjoy any rights or easements to receive a mains water supply.

Prior to completion, the adjoining owner will disconnect the existing water supply prior to the Property.

The adjoining owner will not grant any rights or easements over the surrounding land for any alternative supply.

The Property is currently occupied and vacant possession will not be given on completion"

Something very odd here - makes you wonder how the current occupiers come and go?

The whole thing about water supply is a red herring / simply to be awkward. 
If it is a private water supply, the owner be refuse to continue to supply the property.  That may not be legal if the current occupiers remain and rely on the utility.
If the owner applies for a public water supply, the statutory undertaker (Severn Trent) are legally obligated to provide that water supply and will seek to obtain agreement (at sensible cost) for the service crossing the land.  If agreement cannot be reached, then the statutory undertaker will use their statutory powers to install that water supply and compensation to the landowner will be low (as per statute).
The same applies for any other utility services.

I am surprised the Solicitor was agreeable to write that statement which is clearly just intended to intimidate.