Are you saying that he is proposing to use the drive which he retained as access for a further onward development which would in effect be an extension of your development and would lead to all the traffic to the extension development going through your exclusive part?
Who has control of the gate and who owns the gate?
It is not unknown for a developer to buy a property or properties at the head of a cul-de-sac and demolish them to access land on the other side which has been hitherto landlocked.
Your situation is not too dissimilar although he is not demolishing houses.
The reality is that because you signed contracts which allowed this, there is very little you can do about his proposal except with regard to objecting to the planning application on the basis of the adverse effect on your property and the increase in traffic over the narrow road and the dangers involved.
Presumably, 5 people will object and the more objections are put forward, the better.
I would suggest you use the planning consultant to put your objection forward because they will have a better idea of how to word it.
If all 5 houses pay towards the fees for the objection, it is not going to cost that much between each of you. However if one of them does not contribute, they will still have the benefit of any outcome.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Please don’t forget to rate the service positive. It’s an important part of the process by which experts get paid.
No rating means I don’t get paid. It doesn’t cost you anything but helps me greatly.
There is no legal argument here, what you have are practical and planning consent arguments, inadequacy of the access, adverse effect on the property, diminishing in value. Those kind of things.
The developer owns the land and he has granted you the right of access over it and he is able to grant others the right of access over it also.
It is the wording of the impact upon your property and laying out exactly what the problem is with traffic which is important which is why I suggested the planning consultant puts together the objection on behalf of everyone.
One other thing, and that is that if there is ever a hearing, make sure that you attend otherwise, the chairman may believe that you are not that serious with your objection. I have seen objections virtually discounted when the object did not attend but simply sent a further letter in with the chairman saying that if the objective couldn’t be bothered to attend, then clearly it wasn’t that important.
I am pleased to help. Thanks for the review