Single track dead end - emergency vehicles

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

Of course. That’s why I posted it.

A fire tender access is about as exclusive a land use as you can get

Riiiiight... of course.

What was I thinking.

I mean, obviously a fire tender occupies the land much more intensively than someone parking on it 9 hours a day, 7 days a week.

You're a complete genius. Why didn't I see that?

If this was designated as an essential access for fire fighting vehicles then it would need to be kept clear at all times so that it was ‘exclusively’ available for that purpose. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year

Obviously that will never happen, because this developer has planning permission and Building Regulations are not going to create rights for third parties over the his land.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 24th February 08:00

[Equus]

Elysium said:

It this was designated as an essential access for fire fighting vehicles then it would need to be kept clear at all times so that it was ‘exclusively’ available for that purpose. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year

Just like a normal access easement then?

But like I said, I obviously lack your legal expertise.

You're a genius. We are not worthy, etc.

Edited by Equus on Monday 24th February 08:40

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

It this was designated as an essential access for fire fighting vehicles then it would need to be kept clear at all times so that it was ‘exclusively’ available for that purpose. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year

Just like a normal access easement then?

But like I said, I obviously lake your legal expertise.

A normal easement would not be 'exclusive'.

There is an obvious difference between a right to pass over land and a requirement for land to be kept free at all times for the passage of emergency vehicles.

Perhaps you should try reading the case notes I posted again?

Edited by Elysium on Monday 24th February 08:07

[Equus]

Elysium said:

A normal easement would not be 'exclusive'.

There is an obvious difference between a right to pass over land and a requirement for land to be kept free at all times for the passage of emergency vehicles.

Where in the Builidng Regulations (or anywhere else) does it say that a road or or turning facility used by emergency vehicles has to be kept free at all times?

The assumption is simply that they will have to take their chances with other traffic, and that there is a reasonable chance that they will be able to pass when required.

Emergency vehicles don't have 'exclusive' rights of access, any more than any other road traffic.

But like I said, you're obviously far clever than me.

Can't waste any more time chatting - I'm off to make a claim for Adverse Possession of the land I walk my dogs across every other day, because obviously the landowner can't do anything else with it in between, so I must have factual possession.

[PugwasHDJ80]

Has anyone seen m'luds wig?

[dmc26]

thanks for the replys…

sorry I didn't reply earlier it could've cleared up a few thoughts on all of this..

the single track does not affect me at all and that wasn't the reason I came on here. I have a fairly decent size driveway which accommodates us and any guests that come around.

the application site is approx. 2 acres and as I said its about 1/4mile long, so its long and fairly narrow. the applicant has agreed to upgrade a small section of the private road at the entrance of his plot near the start of the road which the council have agreed they will adopt afterwards.

The application site although pretty large, only has the PP to develop approx 1/3 of the site and this is inside of the plot away from the boundary of ownership. bin lorries currently reverse the length of the street.

the indents and turning circles have been upgraded by current residents and maintained over the years.

i do agree the new landowner should not have to give up any of the land he has purchased for existing residents, it would've been nice if we could've all came to an agreement for purchase/maintenance etc as the land being used by residents further up the street is land that Is not allowed to be developed and sits approx. 3-4m higher than the area where the house build will be taking place.

[dmc26]

Equus said:

Yes (there is guidance under a document called Manual for Streets; see section 6.7, page 75), and if the Planners and statutory consultees had done their job correctly, it should have been assessed at the Planning stage.

I

.

cheers

[Elysium]

dmc26 said:

thanks for the replys…

sorry I didn't reply earlier it could've cleared up a few thoughts on all of this..

the single track does not affect me at all and that wasn't the reason I came on here. I have a fairly decent size driveway which accommodates us and any guests that come around.

the application site is approx. 2 acres and as I said its about 1/4mile long, so its long and fairly narrow. the applicant has agreed to upgrade a small section of the private road at the entrance of his plot near the start of the road which the council have agreed they will adopt afterwards.

The application site although pretty large, only has the PP to develop approx 1/3 of the site and this is inside of the plot away from the boundary of ownership. bin lorries currently reverse the length of the street.

the indents and turning circles have been upgraded by current residents and maintained over the years.

i do agree the new landowner should not have to give up any of the land he has purchased for existing residents, it would've been nice if we could've all came to an agreement for purchase/maintenance etc as the land being used by residents further up the street is land that Is not allowed to be developed and sits approx. 3-4m higher than the area where the house build will be taking place.

Thanks for the additional info.

1. Do you know how long the residents have used and maintained the indents and turning circles?

2. Is the work to fence off these areas part of the approved development?

3. The planning permission will include a number of conditions. It's common for these to include a requirement for approval of boundary treatments, which might help here?

My thinking here is that, if you have enough evidence to demonstrate potential rights over the indents and turning circles, you might be able to create some leverage and encourage the developer to sell some of the land to the residents.

It does sound as if it should be of greater value to the householders than to the developer.

[Elysium]

Equus said:

But like I said, you're obviously far clever than me.

Its possible

Have you ever been wrong about anything?

[dmc26]

Elysium said:

Thanks for the additional info.

1. Do you know how long the residents have used and maintained the indents and turning circles?

2. Is the work to fence off these areas part of the approved development?

3. The planning permission will include a number of conditions. It's common for these to include a requirement for approval of boundary treatments, which might help here?

My thinking here is that, if you have enough evidence to demonstrate potential rights over the indents and turning circles, you might be able to create some leverage and encourage the developer to sell some of the land to the residents.

It does sound as if it should be of greater value to the householders than to the developer.

1. approx. 25 years the land has been maintained (longest resident here)
2. the boundary fence is out with the PP approval which has raised other issues, the council did sign off a landscape plan that includes works out with the area that they agreed. the applicant is currently going through a CLUD application to have these approved retrospectively.

there is currently a legal battle over use of the spaces for residents further up etc etc. evidence has been provided on use and maintenance but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere except for costing folk money, sadly.
its a real shame as the house that will get built looks absolutely amazing and it'll be great to see some unused land being built on and tidy up an overgrown site.

[dmc26]

netherfield said:

Why would you think it has anything to do with the local council, surely your solicitor pointed out the facts when you purchased, it's no different than expecting them to come and keep your garden path/driveway/boundary wall/fence in good order.

previous house owner didn't disclose the information about this.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

Its possible

No, no, you do yourself a disservice - it['s a certainty.

I've spoken to my solicitor this morning and he has confirmed that not only can I claim all the land where I regularly walk the dogs, but since I visited Sandringham one afternoon last summer, I've got a pretty good claim to adverse possession on that too.

Liz won't be happy, though, so I may have to wait a bit longer for the knighthood.

dmc26 said:

there is currently a legal battle over use of the spaces for residents further up etc etc. evidence has been provided on use and maintenance but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere except for costing folk money...

Now there's a surprise!

dmc26 said:

...the applicant is currently going through a CLUD application to have these approved retrospectively.

This might be worth looking at, and challenging, however.

Edited by Equus on Monday 24th February 11:44

[Elysium]

dmc26 said:

1. approx. 25 years the land has been maintained (longest resident here)
2. the boundary fence is out with the PP approval which has raised other issues, the council did sign off a landscape plan that includes works out with the area that they agreed. the applicant is currently going through a CLUD application to have these approved retrospectively.

there is currently a legal battle over use of the spaces for residents further up etc etc. evidence has been provided on use and maintenance but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere except for costing folk money, sadly.
its a real shame as the house that will get built looks absolutely amazing and it'll be great to see some unused land being built on and tidy up an overgrown site.

So the areas have already been fenced off?

It sounds as if you are deep in dispute territory already. If the residents are not objecting to the CLUD it would be worth doing so. I would use highways / access issues as the basis for that and try to get someone from the council highways team down to site.

Although it is a private road, there are still applicable design standards. The complexity is that they require land that belongs to someone else.

That said the only real options would be to:

1. Wait for the outcome of the legal battle over rights to use the land.

2. Offer an olive branch to the developer and negotiate to buy or rent it.

[Elysium]

Equus said:

I've spoken to my solicitor this morning and he has confirmed that not only can I claim all the land where I regularly walk the dogs, but since I visited Sandringham one afternoon last summer, I've got a pretty good claim to adverse possession on that too.

Liz won't be happy, though, so I may have to wait a bit longer for the knighthood.

Just let it go. I slightly disagreed with you. It's not that big of a deal.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

...If the residents are not objecting to the CLUD it would be worth doing so. I would use highways / access issues as the basis for that and try to get someone from the council highways team down to site.

I wouldn't, but then I'm not as clever as Elysium.

As a poor, ignorant Planning Consultant, though, I'd point out that CLUED's are not determined on their planning merits, as such: they are determined on the simple basis of whether the work meets the test of lawfulness.

For example, if you're applying for a CLUED on the basis of the 4 year rule (Section 171B of the TCPA), the only consideration is whether the breach of planning has been continuous and unenforced for the requisite period. If the applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the LPA , then they are legally obliged to grant the Certificate; if he can't, they won't.

What the council highways team may or may not think of it is irrelevant.

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

...If the residents are not objecting to the CLUD it would be worth doing so. I would use highways / access issues as the basis for that and try to get someone from the council highways team down to site.

I wouldn't, but then I'm not as clever as Elysium.

As a poor, ignorant Planning Consultant, though, I'd point out that CLUED's are not determined on their planning merits, as such: they are determined on the simple basis of whether the work meets the test of lawfulness.

For example, if you're applying for a CLUED on the basis of the 4 year rule (Section 171B of the TCPA), the only consideration is whether the breach of planning has been continuous and unenforced for the requisite period. If the applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the LPA , then they are legally obliged to grant the Certificate; if he can't, they won't.

What the council highways team may or may not think of it is irrelevant.

You have missed the point. I suspect because your desire to be technically 'right' is clouding your judgement and you seem to have a weird desire to show you are smarter than me.

I never suggested that objecting on highways grounds would be effective. However, it could provide a way to get someone from highways to site, creating a little more leverage that might in turn be helpful if the residents get into serious discussions about ending their legal claim by buying or renting the the disputed land.

You chose to snip the final lines of my post.

Elysium said:

That said the only real options would be to:

1. Wait for the outcome of the legal battle over rights to use the land.

2. Offer an olive branch to the developer and negotiate to buy or rent it.

I await your further attempts to disagree with me over some petty detail.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

I never suggested that objecting on highways grounds would be effective.

Ah, right... subtle. That comes of being a genius, I suppose?

I'd have never thought of objecting to an application with the express intention of failing. That's clever, that is!


Of course, the minor fly in your ointment is that anybody with the slightest clue about CLUEDs (see what I did there?) will realise immediately that it has fk all to do with Highways, and they simply won't get involved.

There may well be valid ways to object to the CLUED - it's a form of application that's much misunderstood, and where applicants frequently make mistakes - but hey, what benefit would that be?

[Elysium]

Equus said:

Elysium said:

I never suggested that objecting on highways grounds would be effective.

Ah, right... subtle. That comes of being a genius, I suppose?

I'd have never thought of objecting to an application with the express intention of failing. That's clever, that is!


Of course, the minor fly in your ointment is that anybody with the slightest clue about CLUEDs (see what I did there?) will realise immediately that it has fk all to do with Highways, and they simply won't get involved.

There may well be valid ways to object to the CLUED - it's a form of application that's much misunderstood, and where applicants frequently make mistakes - but hey, what benefit would that be?

Two possible courses of action. For some reason you seem to think you are the only person who can possibly know the right one?

My judgement, is that the local authority are unlkely to get involved in a dispute over the ownership of the land. As a result, I doubt that a permanent solution will be found through the planning process.

Perhaps there will be a technical error that could result in the application being rejected. But then what would stop them simply resubmitting it?

At the end of the day, this is not the residents land and they do not currently have rights over it. The solution as I see it is to establish those rights, through a legal process or commercially.

[Equus]

Elysium said:

Perhaps there will be a technical error that could result in the application being rejected. But then what would stop them simply resubmitting it?

Because if it fails to meet the test of lawfulness, it will continue to fail if they resubmit it.

As a common example: to meet the 4/10 year rule, the breach has to be continuous. If you can provide evidence to the LPA that there has been a break in its continuity, then the CLUED will fail, no matter how many times it is resubmitted.

Elysium said:

You chose to snip the final lines of my post.

I also chose to snip the line that said:

Elysium said:

Although it is a private road, there are still applicable design standards. The complexity is that they require land that belongs to someone else.

...Despite the fact that it compounds the error of your statement and makes it clear that you misunderstand the process.

I reiterate: compliance with design standards, or any other assessment of the Planning merits or otherwise of the work is irrelevant from the point of view of a CLUED. Either the work requires Planning consent, or it doesn't. That is all that a CLUED measures.

[anotherbigspender]

Equus said:

As a poor, ignorant Planning Consultant

I thought you described yourself as an architect?