Can I refuse access or ask for compensation?

[lovelyhead]

I know there are a lot of smart cookies on here and I have an interesting case for you. Just to be clear, this isn't about me being on the make trying to screw someone over just to make a fast buck.

OK. Next door to us is an empty disused building. It was disused when we bought the house and there was a planning application submitted for 5 houses to be built on the site. We were happy with this.

This planning application fell through and a supermarket bought the site. They are now trying to get planning permission to turn the building into a supermarket. We are not happy about that and have been fighting them for 7 months. The planning department is still waiting on more evidence from the applicant so there is still a chance it might not get the go ahead.

Assuming it does get the green light, the applicant/supermarket will need to block up two windows one low down and another high up on the side of the building, re-render it, then paint the whole side of the building. I would imagine scaffolding would be required to do this.

In order to erect scaffolding, they would need to do so on our shared access path. This path is shared between 8 houses. It is in our title deeds as a shared access co-owned by these 8 houses.

Can I refuse to allow access to the scaffolding? Can I demand compensation if I do allow it? Would all of my neighbors have to agree as well to allow them access?

I have included some photos to give you an idea of what I am talking about. I'm in Scotland if that makes any difference. I hope someone can help. Thanks in advance!

 

[Nakajo]

1. No
2. No
3. No

(although I'm not familiar with Scottish legislation, so I may be mistaken in regards to one or more of the answers provided above)

 

[lovelyhead]

1. No
2. No
3. No

(although I'm not familiar with Scottish legislation, so I may be mistaken in regards to one or more of the answers provided above)

Can you expand on that? From everything I have read, unless the scaffolding is needed for emergency maintenance then the land owner has the right to refuse access. Is this not the case?

 

[Nakajo]

I understood that ownership was shared.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If the development is going to go ahead then I cannot see why you think compensation is in order, other than purely to make a fast buck?

 

[lovelyhead]

I understood that ownership was shared.

Yes the lane running up around my house is shared with the houses that are joined on to my house. The disused building does not have any shared access to the lane. Only the houses.

 

[lovelyhead]

If the development is going to go ahead then I cannot see why you think compensation is in order, other than purely to make a fast buck?

Ideally I would like to make things as difficult as possible for the supermarket if it gets the go ahead. If I can get some money from them then it may go towards helping us move house.

 

[geraldthehamster]

1. No
2. No
3. No

(although I'm not familiar with Scottish legislation, so I may be mistaken in regards to one or more of the answers provided above)

Question: if the disused building does not own the access and has no easement to use it, and erecting the scaffolding would obstruct the access for its owners, does that not give the owners any control over whether, or at least on what terms, the scaffolding is erected?

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

So don't start your thread off by saying you don't want to screw them ver and make a fast buck then!

 

[lovelyhead]

1. No
2. No
3. No

(although I'm not familiar with Scottish legislation, so I may be mistaken in regards to one or more of the answers provided above)

Question: if the disused building does not own the access and has no easement to use it, and erecting the scaffolding would obstruct the access for its owners, does that not give the owners any control over whether, or at least on what terms, the scaffolding is erected?

Cheers
Richard

Exactly. I think Nakjo thought the disused building owner had shared access when he made his reply. This is not the case. They have no ownership or right of access to the lane.

 

[lovelyhead]

So don't start your thread off by saying you don't want to screw them ver and make a fast buck then!

Yeah OK it's a fair cop! Ideally I would like to hold up the development of the supermarket if not outright stop it, if at all possible. I'm not looking to make money here just as a quick cash grab, as I just want to live in my home without having lorries delivering goods at all hours of the day and night with a new born babies room a few meters away. If we can't stop them, some compensation would go a long way to helping us move home.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Exactly. I think Nakjo thought the disused building owner had shared access when he made his reply. This is not the case. They have no ownership or right of access to the lane.

Don't get me wrong - I don't know the answer to that question...

 

[lovelyhead]

Exactly. I think Nakjo thought the disused building owner had shared access when he made his reply. This is not the case. They have no ownership or right of access to the lane.

Don't get me wrong - I don't know the answer to that question...

When I say "exactly" I was meaning what you wrote is exactly what I would like someone knowledgeable to answer.

 

[jeds]

I can't see you getting anywhere with this. It would be very easy to block the windows from inside if necessary.

 

[JohnD]

is that a brick wall I can see, running down the passageway?