Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Not the Conservators' Q&A | |
Posted by: | Jonty Nicholls | |
Date/Time: | 28/09/14 17:13:00 |
Thanks Nick. I think what you're both (you and John) saying is that with a smaller development, the site might still be landlocked, but only just: (a) the front is only landlocked by a few metres. (b) there were historic (pre 1871) access ways to the side and back over land which has since been registered to WPCC - though there is a good chance that the site-owner retains a right of way as a consequence. The easement granted to WBC to allow a new access road to be built on the common gives greater/better access to the site allowing its full development potential to be unlocked. This is why WBC paid WPCC a few hundred K. Roads can be built on the Commons; the 1871 Act provides for it and there are several on it already. The recent Appeal Court judgement explains in quite readable detail how/why the Act allows the new road to be built and why it is legal. I hope that answers Caroline's question to her satisfaction. |