Access question

[onthehoof]

Not sure where to post this but grateful for advice, we have a shared access to a field, neighbouring farmer uses it to access his field, the actual land for the access is owned by a third party (the former owner of both fields) we have right of way over it and right to maintain it, question is can I put hardcore down to make the access better even though I don't own the land, currently it is only soil so access is tricky when wet
[/QUOTE]

 

[Steevo]

Right to maintain probably doesn’t technically allow for improvement....but that may not be an issue is all parties agree.

You may need planning permission too.

 

[onthehoof]

I would probably just chuck a load of stone on what's already there and run it down

 

[Paul E]

Depends if the landowner is a tosser or not.

 

[Dry Rot]

Similar situation here. I just send a letter to the landowner asking permission and if he agrees to please sign and date the copy letter and send back in the enclosed SAE. It's a lot easier for him to do that than have meetings, discussions, and possibly arguments.

The argument could include mentioning the landowner's obligation to keep the access unobstructed at his own expense, possible legal fees, which it would be if the road gets too bad, but never had to mention that (except to the Forestry Commission!).

 

[Steevo]

Depends if the landowner is a tosser or not.

Similar situation here. I just send a letter to the landowner asking permission and if he agrees to please sign and date the copy letter and send back in the enclosed SAE. It's a lot easier for him to do that than have meetings, discussions, and possibly arguments.

The argument could include mentioning the landowner's obligation to keep the access unobstructed at his own expense, possible legal fees, which it would be if the road gets too bad, but never had to mention that (except to the Forestry Commission!).

Seems a bit extreme.....it is the landowners land after all!

The landowner will be liable for any breach of planning permission and the associated costs that would go with that so it's not like he can just grant permission and waive all of that responsibility.

 

[Dry Rot]

Seems a bit extreme.....it is the landowners land after all!

The landowner will be liable for any breach of planning permission and the associated costs that would go with that so it's not like he can just grant permission and waive all of that responsibility.

It's an existing use. Since when did anyone need PP to put hard core in a gateway on their own land?

 

[onthehoof]

Depends if the landowner is a tosser or not.

County Council

 

[farmerm]

I might have started by not purchasing a land locked field that requires access over land owned by a third party, especially when that third party is a (dis)organisation. What specific terms regards right of access are on the deeds? I would say you can not unilaterally upgrade the access though the specific circumstances make a big difference... a few yards across a bit of ground, out of sight that nobody in the council really even know or cares for its existence is in reality if not in legality a bit different to instating a permanent track across 20 acres...

 

[onthehoof]

might have started by not purchasing a land locked field that requires access over land owned by a third party,

Not land locked we have a right of access for ever over the land, plenty of fields require right of way over someone elses land, we in fact have 3 other blocks of land accessed by right of way, only difference is these are proper hard tracks so not changing what is already there whereas field in question is earth not hardcore

 

[Steevo]

It's an existing use. Since when did anyone need PP to put hard core in a gateway on their own land?

Depends on the gateway.

Putting hardcore in a road gateway could well need PP.

Putting hardcore in the gateway between the two fields in the middle of the farm away from roads would be covered by permitted development.

 

[Dry Rot]

Depends on the gateway.

Putting hardcore in a road gateway could well need PP.

Putting hardcore in the gateway between the two fields in the middle of the farm away from roads would be covered by permitted development.

Draw me a plan using the information in the OP and maybe you can convince me!

 

[onthehoof]

Does this help?

 

[Andy26]

Does this help?

Just put a new gateway on the Western boundary, direct onto the public highway.

 

[onthehoof]

So what comes under 'maintenance costs', why bother putting that clause in if there's nothing to maintain

 

[onthehoof]

Just put a new gateway on the Western boundary, direct onto the public highway.

Because it would require PP and there is a 6 inch kerb to negotiate

 

[Andy26]

Because it would require PP and there is a 6 inch kerb to negotiate

Ag PD rights. Dropped kerb is no problem.

You'll have two accesses then, add value and avoid conflict, win win.

 

[farmerm]

Ag PD rights. Dropped kerb is no problem.

You'll have two accesses then, add value and avoid conflict, win win.

Are you sure about it being PD, depends on the road you are joining does it not? Chap local to me had a gateway onto the main road that was not in use and the hedge had grown up though the gate. Several years ago the Council did up the road and installed full height curbs with internal drainage channels where the old gateway was. Owner raised it with the council as soon as he became aware and was informed it would be easily rectified should he ever need it to be... Several years later owner decided he did need to reopen this historic gateway as the other access point is difficult for larger machines.. of course those who said it would be ok no longer work at the council and I believe he had quite a battle in getting permission and the curb dropped though he did eventually prevail.