Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post Reply
Dreckly
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:41 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by Dreckly »

I’ve heard from the senior planning officer regarding my query why a unique informative notice had been added to the notice permitting the removal of our hedge. This is what he says:
“In this case the informative was attached to your hedgerow removal notice on account of local objection to make it clear that this did not allow new access. It was set out in the notice with the aim of aiding yourself in not creating unlawful access and running into issue thereafter. The same does apply for all hedgerow removals (even if not explicitly set out). An informative is not a condition explicit to your notice, but more so information.
I can confirm that Part 6 Class B (d) of the GPDO: allows for the provision, rearrangement, or replacement of a private way but this is subject to prior approval first being sought. (please see conditions B5, point 2 a). That is not suggestive that permitted development rights do not apply in your case. But under this class prior approval is required to be submitted.
Prior approval is required so the Council can make an assessment of:
• Compliance with the criteria in the GDPO
• Whether the development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the site
• the siting and means of construction of the private way
• look at any flooding land contamination issues.
I hope that helps. What I would suggest is that when you submit your prior approval application that you include a supplementary letter which sets out why the access is being proposed and the agricultural need for it. If the access is required for a new barn, it may be preferential to submit an holistic applicant for both the barn and access.
I hope that helps, ”


I think there’s some desire to be helpful, and there’s recognition that the work proposed is controversial, but I’m not convinced the council needs to make this ‘assessment’ if the project conforms to the guidance of the GPDO. In other words, if we just went ahead and did the work properly, nothing would happen at an official level. It’s just creeping bureaucracy.

However, the planning guy is right, recommending that without his rubber stamp, we would most likely run into more trouble with nearby residents of the nasty or unhinged variety. Recently, my wife and I have made an effort to speak with less ‘conspicuous’ residents, as well as those who are enerally supportive. The picture we’ve built up is of a small Management Team, heavily influenced by a few difficult and uninformed individuals. The majority aren’t particularly concerned by the addition of one entrance splay and a pair of gates. It won’t rock their world.

So, weighing the pros and cons, we’ve submitted a prior approval application, reasoning that the £160, or thereabouts, is worth it for the council’s blessing. We know the majority of residents are not going to support things like threats to block the new entrance with a fence. Apparently, the Management Team just assumed they would. Hopefully, what they’ll be left with is their ‘ransom strip,’ and we all know how substantial that is!

Realistically, we can’t do anything before spring now, but we’re able to book the contractor and order the gates etc. No one knows we’ll also be whipping out another hedge at the front, but that’s definitely garden land and no more than 8 metres long, at most. The entrance there has never been closed up or extinguished, just not used for around 20 years. More fun and games, though, I expect!
pilman
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by pilman »

So, weighing the pros and cons, we’ve submitted a prior approval application, reasoning that the £160, or thereabouts, is worth it for the council’s blessing.
Good luck for everything going in your favour, although it would concern me when a Senior Planning Officer cannot understand the meaning of the English words "ON SUCH LAND" as were used in Part 6 Class B 5(2)(a) in the GPDO.
(2) Development consisting of the extension or alteration of a building situated on article 2(4) land
or the provision, rearrangement or replacement of a private way on such land is permitted subject to—

(a) the condition that the developer must, before beginning the development, apply to the
local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the
authority will be required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the building
as extended or altered or the siting and means of construction of the private way.


There is no such requirement for land that is not in Article 2(4) land
Dreckly
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:41 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by Dreckly »

Yes, it's disconcerting the Planning Officer is making the same mistake as I did when I read that 'helpful' booklet from an authority within an AONB.
He also doesn't appear to get my point that saying “may need planning permission” would be less prescriptive than "would" and still cover the situation. It would be less wrong, too!
I'm keeping in mind we have bigger fish to fry. The second bat report on the barn is due any time and we will soon be ready to submit plans for that. With serious money riding on the outcome, I'm not about to make an enemy of the planners over this new entrance and track.
Dreckly
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:41 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by Dreckly »

Good news came on Friday in a letter telling us the LPA has no objection to our construction of a new farm track. It reads, “Prior Approval is not required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed development.”

This is confusing, since the last communication from the planning officer said :

To clarify; a new access would require an application of some form to be submitted to MDDC. This could be either:
• a full planning application for access on its own
• a full planning application for access connected to additional development
• as part of a prior approval application under the legislation to which you refer

So, it appears we've submitted a prior approval application, to be told we don't need prior approval! :D Frankly, I couldn't care less now. At last, we have everything in place to get on with the job, probably in the late spring, but that will depend on the contractor and lead times for bespoke gates, kerbing etc.
As the prior approval application did not have to go to the Parish Council or require any public notice, I don't think our adversaries are aware of this development. I'll send them a link at some point, but for now at least, I expect this thread will fall quiet. I'll update if anything interesting happens. :wink:
mr rusty
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 3:28 pm

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by mr rusty »

I'll update if anything interesting happens.
I'd lay odds it's "when" not "if"... :D
Dreckly
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:41 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 10
Number of topics per page: 1

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by Dreckly »

mr rusty wrote: Wed Nov 08, 2023 4:46 pm
I'll update if anything interesting happens.
I'd lay odds it's "when" not "if"... :D
Nothing has happened in almost 5 months. :D
For the record, we updated everyone on the private estate regarding the progression of the disagreement that arose, keeping it factual.
We also wrote a separate letter to the Management Committee, advising them of the LPA's decision. They replied to say they were 'already aware.' They also advised that our letter raised 'further questions' for them, but these have not been forthcoming. Perhaps this is fortuitous, because my wife and I have concluded that answering questions, or giving further information to the Committee, is precisely what we should not do. The best way to demonstrate our entitlement, will be to proceed with the work without consultation or input from them.
During the winter months, we reduced the height of the elm hedge and took it back to the original laid framework with the double aim of rejuvenation and making it easier to manage.(It's gone to 10' in the past!) Our letters in the autumn advised this was work we'd be carrying out. No one commented while we worked on it over several weeks.
The work on the new access is scheduled for a date within the next few months. Residents will know when it's about to happen, because heavy plant will arrive about a week in advance. We believe the opposition have tacitly accepted defeat on this, and that they're saving their energy for opposition to our barn conversion plans. These have changed, but I'm hoping they'll go in around the time of the digger work.
Either way, one of the opposition's major protagonists won't be too keen to get into a scrap with us this spring. He put his property on the market at an inflated price in January, so although he's had no takers yet, he'll be hoping to fill in a TA6 at some point before Midsummer!
Spring
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 1:31 pm

Re: Neighbours Wish to Deny New Access from Servient Land

Post by Spring »

either way, one of the opposition's major protagonists won't be too keen to get into a scrap with us this spring. He put his property on the market at an inflated price in January, so although he's had no takers yet, he'll be hoping to fill in a TA6 at some point before Midsummer!( anyone can put a house on the market) do not count your chickens.
Post Reply