The High Court has approved a revised entrance arrangement connected to a property adjustment order in a family law case, but declined for now to declare a right of way for M.
In a supplemental judgment delivered on 23 January 2015 and clarified on 6 February, Mr Justice Henry Abbott accepted Map No. 4, prepared by Mr T.O’L. It provides for a new entrance to the green-hatched land on the west and a realigned entrance to C.H. running alongside it, with a dog-leg near C.H.
The court also directed that the blue-hatched area be expanded to provide access for servicing and repairing a shed on the west. A concession of land from the purple area to provide a five-metre driveway linking the entrances was incorporated after the respondent’s counsel chose not to press for it, the judge said.
The changes arose after the parties’ advisers examined how to implement a property adjustment order made in an earlier judgment, delivered on 31 July 2014. They found that moving the entrance to C.H. eastwards would leave room for access to the green-hatched land and could improve the prospects of obtaining planning permission for residential development. The earlier order’s scheme was intended to enable the applicant to develop and sell some land to meet costs associated with the needs of four young children.
The applicant must provide a like-for-like replacement entrance to C.H. at her expense. The judgment records that her counsel considered a cost under or within €40,000 commensurate with the likely benefit of securing reasonable planning permission; it does not set that figure as a cap or state the final cost. The parties’ representatives are to prepare a technical description and timescale for the work. Outline planning permission must first be sought for both the new entrance and the realignment, with the applicant paying the application cost and the respondent giving written agreement as the person holding paper title.
The representatives are also to record the existing entrance and services, and prepare an agreed work specification and arrangements for transitional access. If they cannot agree those documents within three months, the applicant may prepare them unilaterally and seek court approval. The applicant must provide insurance and an indemnity during the works. The maps are to preserve the respondent’s title to the new alternative access.
Separately, the judge refused for now the applicant’s request for a declaration securing a right of way for M. along a route shown on Map No. 5. He said granting it might prejudice a proposed sale of the B. lands to a relative of the respondent, and he was not satisfied that the route was an easement. He identified possible public-road or public-right-of-way explanations but made no finding on them, leaving the applicant’s solicitor to investigate and allowing a further application if needed.