Saturday, September 13, 2008

Varying a private right of way

The owner of the servient tenement (Cheshire County Council) is entitled to develop their own land, however, this can come into conflict with their neighbour's (me) overriding interest, ie. a right of way.

It may be possible, bearing in mind the configuration of the land in the servient tenement, to redefine the right of way along a new route. This has to be negotiated with the owner of the dominant tenement (me).

What Cheshire County Council should have done is negotiate with me to redefine my right of way. Unfortunately they have never attempted to do this preferring to use threats and intimidation in an attempt to achieve their objective at zero cost.

At the moment they are offering me a choice of two redefined rights of way, however, this is clearly not a negotiation (or a consultation as they and the LGO call it) because they are also threatening to block my right of way with a step (infringe my right of way and [because they are a public authority] also my human rights to the quiet enjoyment of my property) should I refuse to accept their plans for a redefined right of way. As far as I am concerned this is just another attempt to threaten and intimidate me into accepting a redefined right of way that suits them rather than me.

This is the third time they have attempted to do this and on all three occasions they have refused to supply either full and proper plans of what they are threatening to do or the specific statutory authority that allows them to interfere with my legal and human rights.

The LGO have been involved twice, Pat Thomas, the then York LGO), appeared to understand the issue because she eventually secured a promise from the council that the roadway would be completed in a way that would have no impact on my land. Unfortunately Anne Seex, the current LGO, doesn't appear to have a clue because not only did she fail to crystallise the issue she went out of her way to obfuscate it in an attempt to draw attention away from her perverse findings.

We are now in the ridiculous situation where Pat Thomas ended her involvement with my case on the understanding that the roadway would be completed
that the roadway would be completed without any impact on my property whilst Anne Seex has just ended her involvement knowing that when completed the roadway will impact on my land.

Just what good are these incompetent amateurs, who refer to themselves as Local Government Ombudsmen, if they can't take our legal and human rights
into account?

No comments:

Post a Comment