Bit theoretical here but suppose you own field A which has access through a farmyard now sold off (dumb move but hey) and the new owners of the yard are a bit grumbly (as they always are) but are ok with the situation (as they should be). Now what happens if field B adjacent to field A (but beyond it) become available to buy/let and you want to access it through field A? Are you allowed? (I suspect not). I appreciate this is a bit vague so sorry. I guess would depend on wording of the document.
right of access
- Thread starter Flat 10
- Start date
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
don't see why not.....field A is yours to access for your business....if that business includes field b the so be it?
did field A and B once belong to the same person?,
you'll probably find your easement state something like " access to and from blah blah blah the land of "A Smith" or who thereafter purchases said land, blah blah Blah......."
in that case if originally owned by same person you can access both so long as not clearly defined as a specific field, in which case the link attached explains the rules.
https://www.bsdr.com/publication/easements-accessing-additional-land/
you'll probably find your easement state something like " access to and from blah blah blah the land of "A Smith" or who thereafter purchases said land, blah blah Blah......."
in that case if originally owned by same person you can access both so long as not clearly defined as a specific field, in which case the link attached explains the rules.
https://www.bsdr.com/publication/easements-accessing-additional-land/
fieldfarmer
Member
In my experience unfortunately not. the access is for field A only.
spin cycle
Member
- Location
- north norfolk
https://www.bsdr.com/publication/easements-accessing-additional-land/ Interesting reading.
No you cannot use one access as a bridge to another land parcel.
- Location
- Acton Scott, South Shropshire
Surely, once you have entered field A with intention of going about your lawful activities, if you then happen to wander into an adjacent field you happen to own are you saying that is not allowed?
fieldfarmer
Member
You will have trespass to get there! Took a good solicitor a few attempts to get me to under stand.
edit , ( shared lane.)
- Location
- Acton Scott, South Shropshire
Even if you own field a and have right to enter it?
fieldfarmer
Member
yes, I was told I had the right to use a shared drive to enter field A that I had bought, a few years later I bought the remainder of field A from the same seller but if I went from my first bit of land to the second part of the same field I would have trespass down the lane to get there, how it would be policed I don't know, we just got the new bit put on a convent that allowed the use of the drive.
Edit, ( the seller owned the drive)
Edit, ( the seller owned the drive)
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Yes, by going beyond field A you are increasing the use. Just as if you have an eavement to go into field A, presumably with agricultural eequipment, and started to invite the public in (say you created a camping site) or use field A for manoevers with army tanks! You would be changing the use of the access.
The problem was discussed about my access over neighbour's land when I started selling pet food. Solicitor said I'd probably get away with it as, many years ago, I got PP for a kennels which would indicate that I'd be inviting the public to visit and use the road. As the landowner had made no objections, the use had become established....I think! It's never been challenged anyway. But interesting.
So, just do it and hope it becomes established use over time?
The problem was discussed about my access over neighbour's land when I started selling pet food. Solicitor said I'd probably get away with it as, many years ago, I got PP for a kennels which would indicate that I'd be inviting the public to visit and use the road. As the landowner had made no objections, the use had become established....I think! It's never been challenged anyway. But interesting.
So, just do it and hope it becomes established use over time?
- Location
- Acton Scott, South Shropshire
Every day is a school day - thanks
No, when you buy field B you know the score, either don't buy it or agree a new easement with the servient owner of the access.
Field B must have its own access somewhere.
As you say it must have access somewhere else otherwise is worthless
fieldfarmer
Member
In my case field A was 35 acres but the owner kept back 8 behind his house, when I bought that bit a few yrs later I had to ensure I had leagle access. This was all in the same field.
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
I think it would depend very much on the wording of the covenant. if it was specifically to the field X or was dirt to land behind
Alfred
Member
You can not legally access field B over field A ,unless you own the right of way yourself.
Field B must already have its own access ?
Your convenience of using field A to gain access to field B is not allowed unless under agreement with the owners of the right of way .
Any half witted baraster would soon get you stopped under "enlargement of use , beyond your legal right of way .
He might even be able to argue and extinguish your current right of way, seeing as you could also now access field A from field B instead of enlarging your right of way .
Things can work both ways remember !!
Field B must already have its own access ?
Your convenience of using field A to gain access to field B is not allowed unless under agreement with the owners of the right of way .
Any half witted baraster would soon get you stopped under "enlargement of use , beyond your legal right of way .
He might even be able to argue and extinguish your current right of way, seeing as you could also now access field A from field B instead of enlarging your right of way .
Things can work both ways remember !!
- Location
- S. Staffs
I have recently been told that it is now impossible for a piece of land to become inaccessible due to it being ‘landlocked’ by adjoining properties, how does this square with the quoted article above?