In his summation, the judge reaffirmed that where a verge was part of a public road, the consent of the owner of the verge is not required for improvement works to permit development.
"The amount of "ransom" the landowner could have charged if the judgement had gone the other way would have been substantial," said Susie Thornton, partner at Tods Murray, "so this ruling is important as it reinforces the status quo. It will be a relief to developers, but perhaps a disappointment to landowners looking to maximise the value of their land."
-- Advertisement --
In the case of Hamilton v Nairn, work to improve a junction from the main road on to a new business development was opposed on the basis that although the area of land in question was public road the consent of owner of the land had not been obtained. However, Lord Glennie held that as the land was part of the public road no such consent was required.
Susie Thornton continued: "Despite the fact that the Hamiltons had been given permission by Aberdeen City Council to improve the junction between the road and the entrance to their new business premises, Mr Nairn, the owner of strip of land between the carriageway and the edge of the Hamiltons’ property, claimed that, unless certain constraints applied, he had the exclusive right to use his property as he pleased.
“His counsel argued that as it was accepted that there was no servitude right of access across the strip Mr Nairn could prevent the Hamiltons both from using it for vehicle access and from making any improvements.
“Lord Glennie decided, however, that as the verge formed part of the public road, there was a public right of passage over it and the local authority could permit the improvement works without any further consent from Mr Nairn. No ransom payment could therefore be demanded."
A review of the case can be found at www.todsmurray.com/ransom-strips
(GK)
