This application is due to be heard Thursday evening. I will need some time to prepare my speech/ notes etc so I am afraid it is a little time limited.
It is the fact that the access is restricted and also across someone else's land, so if granted the development would not in fact have the parking shown in the plans as there would be no access to the parking
I feel it will not happen because parking like water takes the line of least resistance and if difficult people will chose to park somewhere else. This small area is already very congested
I am missing something here because either the reluctant ownerwill grant access or he will not. If he will not, and it appears that there isno extra parking, full stop.
That is one issue to raise at the meeting that the access on theplans does not exist and has been refused.
I am not certain what kind of legal argument you are looking for
It is good to have such clarity. The planning officers say that they grant permission for the development. The fact that the access is not in the ownership of the applicant is irrelevant as it is not a condition of planning that the applicant owns the land. Indeed it is not; many purchases of sites are conditional on the proposed purchaser gaining planning permission before any money changes hands. In this case it is not the site itself that is at issue, it is the access and the planners say that it is not for the local planning authority to turn down an application on the grounds that the applicant does not own the land.
My argument is, that ownership of the land is not in contention. It is the access that is at issue here . I would like to be able to quote something that distinguishes between the ownership of the site and the ownership of the access to the site.
I don't know whether the reluctant landowner will support yourcase or not.
if he will support it,then a simple letter which says that he will not agree to grant access over hisland and he has no intention of selling it will support your objection.
If you cannot get that, my suggestion would be to make theplanning consent conditional upon the owner getting a legal easement over thereluctant owners land BEFORE the development starts.
The planning department can do this.
I have gone down this road. The planning department say that the question of access is a civil matter and not their concern. However, I think your suggestion is a good one and I will try to get one of the Councillors on the planning committee ( I am the Ward member and although I can speak I cannot vote or propose a motion) to propose a motion that the application should be deferred until the applicant has a legal easement guaranteeing access. However, again I am concerned that without any form of legal reference this will be rejected.
Researching extensive case law is beyond the scope of this siteand a barrister will charge £300 per hour for it. We do quote case law when itreadily rolls from our memory.
In addition, the legal resource used by solicitors and barristersto access such information costs upwards of £10,000 per annum.
Let me give you an analogy.
I want to build a house on a major dual carriageway.
The local authority will not let me have it because they will nothave me coming out of my drive onto a road where cars are flying past at 70mph.
So I say, that's not a problem, I can access from a side roadaround the back over a field which I don't own.
The local authority are not going to say "okay go ahead then" ifthey know that I am never ever going to get the access that I need.
I think the conditional planning consent subjected to theeasement is the way to go.
If the developer is going to get the easement then it won'tpresenting with a problem because he cannot access the land until he has theeasement in any event!
Thank you for this. I don't think I was looking for extensive case law, but something along the lines of the XYZ Act 20** talks of applications where the applicant does not own the property at issue. But does not apply to situations where the access is a point of contention and without consent the application must fall.
The planning department is absolutely correct when they say that there is nothing to stop anyone applying for planning permission on land which they do not own.
It therefore comes down to it being a condition of the planning permission , it is as simple as that