Position of Site Notice

Check this out first with the local planner and you will get their view which is most important as they will not process the application if they are not satisfied. Generally the beneficiary of a “right of way” is known as the Dominant Tenement while the owner of the land is known as the Servient Tenement. A problem may arise if the Site Notice is removed before the application is processed so take photographs after it has been erected. Sounds to me like if there is going to be a problem erecting a Site Notice there is going to be opposition to your client’s planning application. I think it is always better to advise your client to attempt to discuss this with his neighbour first and to show a willingness to negotiate.

@pico wrote:

I am making an application for Planning Permission where the property has no direct frontage to the public footpath or road.

The location is urban but the house is set back approximately 15 metres from the public footpath, and the land they own extends 7 metres in front of their house. To access their land, and park their car, they have a right of way to cross the land in front which is owned by the next door neighbour.

Relations are not good with the next door neighbour and the client does not think the neighbour would give permission to place a Site Notice on the neighbour’s property.

However to position the Site Notice within the boundaries of the client’s property would mean that it would not be able to be read from the public footpath.

Would anybody know what the legal situation is? Does somebody have a right to place a Site Notice on a piece of land over which they have right of way?

Alternatively, is there another place that Site Notice could be positioned that would satisfy the planners?

Your architect should advise you on all these matters and can open discussions with your adjoining neighbour to facilitate the location of the site notice.
Following the outcome of these discussions, he can negotiate with the planner on your behalf citing the relevant section of planning law in support of his proposed location or alternative location as may be required.
Finally he can call and hold a meeting in the neighbourhood to advise those residents that may be affected by the development and/or the local residents association.

Its a bit of a hammer to crack and egg situation, and you can do most of these things yourself with a bit of reading up and a lot of talking with your planner, but negotiating with the neighbour might benefit from an independent third party acting on your behalf.

The local priest maybe.

I understand they are looking for ways to rehabilitate their image in the community.

ONQ.

I recall a project (over twenty years ago, mind) which seemed to have had similar issues.
Former long deep site had been divided with one front site and one rear site having ROW type access and services way-leave arrangements from the front property – but not actual ownership of the rear access strip – in the original transfer from the mid sixties.
This imposition of ROW was related to the front owners being the initial purchaser of the entire plot – but seemed to have no practical benefit to them as there was no third area further in to access – maybe there were other legalities involved at the time preventing full transfer of the side access strip.
Bungalow type houses were built, gardens established, families reared etc and all seemed to go well – the side access strip was fenced, hedged, gated and physically part of the rear site with the front site having its own separate entrance.
The back folk sold out and new people bought the rear dwelling in the mid eighties and commenced re-doing the garden/fencing and proposed a dormer-type extension.
The ‘fronties’ were seemingly crusty enough anyway and probably annoyed that the original ‘backies’ had upped sticks and left them facing something new – plus the rear site access was technically still in their ownership.
Anyway – a poisonous atmosphere soon developed and there was great hub-bub when Planning was applied for by the backies – the fronties threated legal action to prevent construction traffic even if permission was granted (which it was by LA) and there were all sorts of petty road blocking incidents and other childish ‘neighbour from hell’ stuff.
The backies then claimed some sort of ‘Adverse Possession’ for the access strip – although they were new to the site – and were even going to sue their original solicitor for not properly advising them on the drawbacks of the access arrangements etc.
They did get a more favourable arrangement from Court, which took the view that no dwelling site could be placed in danger of being land-locked, although they did not get full ownership as I recall. Some order was eventually made adjusting the site title and registration to something more sensible like a joint tenancy arrangement. However so much time and money had been spent that the extension never did happen – it had became a ‘dead file’ in the place I worked and never reappeared as a project.
Sorry about the long winded anecdote.
My Point; assuming this case has an access side strip arrangement, can the Clients not challenge the ROW arrangement and get their legal entitlements to use their access clarified – which use may include or infer a logical entitlement for the putting up of public notices to comply with their statutory obligations?