Kindly Acknowledge the Safe Receipt of This Email by Return

M18.014g Email exchange 2nd December 2016

Dear Mr Duncan,

Kindly acknowledge the safe receipt of this email by return.

As with many issues which progress through the court system they are very protracted and as it currently stands, there has been no final determination by the courts over this matter.

You are aware of my client’s previous assertions, via letters dated 23rd July 2013 & 6th October 2016 from Foys Solicitors, that unfettered rights exist. I again enclose copies of these for completeness.

The ongoing court proceedings have thrown up further evidence in my clients favour by way of a copy of a Conveyance, dated 10th October 1962, between the then land owner Mr Booth and the prospective estate developer Messrs Northern Ideal Homes. A copy of this is enclosed. The plan appended to this document clearly highlights the land sale in red edging and the residual land, now owned by my client, washed over in yellow. I would refer you / the Inspector to 4. [ii] which is unequivocal in stipulating that sufficient space be left in developing the red edged land to form accesses into the yellow washed land and that these ‘unbuilt areas’ were to be agreed with the Local Authority. We take it, without knowledge of any other legal documentation, that the required agreement with the Local Authority would have come via the subsequent granting of planning permission for the estate within the red edged land, which of course included the two culs-de-sac which run to a concurrent boundary with my client’s land, thereby providing the said access points.

I will forward [ file sizes too large to include within this email ] three subsequent conveyances between Northern Ideal Homes and the initial owners of properties known as 23 Osborne Drive; 22 Osborne Road; and 2 Rayls Rise, since these are the current neighbouring owners who have questioned my client’s right of access into his land. On each of these documents, you will note at the mid point of page 4 a circled section, which basically states that the conveyed property is subject to the restrictions/conditions specified in the Schedule and that such restrictions/conditions are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. In each case, the conveyance Schedule includes the 1962 conveyance detailed above which, by implication, maintains the two access points to a concurrent boundary with my client’s land.

In the apparent absence of contrary legal documentation or argument by the third parties disputing the accesses, my client’s legal team believe firmly that a prompt and positive outcome from the courts will follow and we will be happy to provide such further evidence, if still required, once available. Notwithstanding, I consider the enclosed information to be yet further proof of my client’s position and it would ordinarily be more than sufficient for the Council to accept and consider a formal planning application without further question, were an application to be made. Accordingly, my view is that it ought to be accepted in the same faith for this process.

I understand that all further statements / documentation for the Inspector has to go through the Programme Officer as there is no direct contact with the Inspector and I note the inclusion of Kerry Trueman in this communication. Given the previous issues regarding lost and delayed correspondence and inaccurately reported information, I must request that a copy of the communication from the Council to the Inspector regarding this matter is forwarded to me so that my client has the confidence that the current position has been fully and accurately portrayed.

Finally, as mentioned, it may be that the ongoing court proceedings will be finalised before the Inspector has concluded his own thoughts and made recommendations on the Todwick allocations. Assuming we do have further evidence to submit, if permitted, should I again lodge this via the Programme Officer? If not, kindly provide the direct address.

I look forward to receiving your response to the Inspector shortly. I will follow this email with 3 further emails enclosing the conveyances for 23 Osborne Drive; 22 Osborne Road; and 2 Rayls Rise.

Kind regards

Ian Hewitt DipURP MRTPI

IAN HEWITT ASSOCIATES

Chartered Town Planning Consultant

On 29 Nov 2016, at 16:56, Mr Duncan wrote:

Dear Mr Hewitt

At the Local Plan examination session regarding Todwick on 27/10/16, the inspector considered site LDF545 (land east of Osborne Road). You have made representations regarding this site and spoke at the session on behalf of your client promoting the site’s allocation for residential development. One issue discussed concerned highways access to the site and the civil law action between your client and neighbouring properties. You indicated in the session that this would be resolved shortly in your client’s favour. The inspector asked for clarification of this issue, by the deadline for statements for the next hearing sessions, which is 5/12/16.

I wanted to remind you of this deadline and to ask if you had any new information on the highways access issue you wish the Council to consider. Alternatively, any further information or position statement you wish the inspector to consider should be submitted to the programme officer by 5pm on 5/12/16.

Regards

Andy Duncan

1