Access rights means of escape - adjacent property owner

[Fire Monkey]

Hello,

I have been approached by a property owner who wish to use my companies land as means of escape from their property and they have requested a licence (or possible an easement or other agreement) giving them those rights. The information given to me so far is sketchy to say the least. I don't know if the property owner is conducting a refurbishment of their property or doing a complete new redevelopment. The land our they wish to have access over is a field that forms part of the demise of a occupied old school. I have not been to this site and I need to check that if, out of hours there is a route to a place of ultimate safety or if a place of relative safety could be deemed reasonable. Also I don't now why the property owner requires this escape route. Fire safety escape aside (although please do comment of that) the question I have is this - under the RRO (Fire Safety) Order, or under any other legislation or local enforcement, would granting such a licence means that the agreement always has to remain in place (if it is deemed an essential escape route) - or that it could give them an implied right even if the agreement ends. I ask because should we wish to sell our building or land or have a change of use this could affect development or the resale value. Just looking around buildings in my local area I can see fire routes out from Closes etc that I would presume always have to remain in use. Would any granting of planning permission, by the local planning office, give them any rights?

In such a case could the property owner expect and demand that we always keep this means of escape in place - is there a time scale of where such route ends up being protected by law and I particular under the Order and would that trump and 'local' agreement in place? Are there any legal cases or precedent that you know about?

Should I request a Fire Strategy report form this property owner and/or their fire risk assessment? This should show the reason why this escape is required.

I presume that the gate separating our land could be suitable secured by a Redl**m bolt on a fence gate (not the final exit fro their building) and the property owner would have suitable training in place to ensure their occupants know how to use it and that escape over a field met the needs of any wheel chair users, that there was suitable escape lighting etc. Also I would presume that they occupiers would have a system in place to ensure that any attending fire crew would know that the occupants have evacuated to the rear of the building.
 
Thanks

FM

[Owain]

I have been approached by a property owner who wish to use my companies land as means of escape from their property and they have requested a licence (or possible an easement or other agreement) giving them those rights.

Their rights, and your obligations, will be the subject of legal agreement and it must be drawn up by a solicitor otherwise you might find yourself responsible for all sorts of liabilities of maintaining the escape route, providing emergency lighting, fencing etc and updating this as legislation changes and having no means of getting out of the agreement.

First question -- are they willing to pay for this, and how much? Unless they are willing to pay a fair price plus your legal fees, it's simpler to Just Say No.

[lyledunn]

Interestingly we had a difficulty in achieving appropriate exit capacity from a social club that backed on to the rear courtyard of a fire station. It would have been so easy to stick a gate in the fence and discharge through the large courtyard to the open frontage of the station. They said no!

[nearlythere]

Interestingly we had a difficulty in achieving appropriate exit capacity from a social club that backed on to the rear courtyard of a fire station. It would have been so easy to stick a gate in the fence and discharge through the large courtyard to the open frontage of the station. They said no!

Not really that interested on Fire Safety after all! Did you not offer them free access to the club via this proposed doorway Lyle?

[Phoenix]

By far the easiest thing is to say no.  In general, we don't like means of escape over a neighbour's land anyway so they would be better off finding their own self-contained escape routes.  There are all sorts of reasons why these way leave agreements are unreliable.

However, they might be in a jam and you might feel charitable towards them in which case the advice of previous posts is good.  You will only be bound by the terms of the contract you draw up so they will have to be very much in your favour.  Having the right of way over the land may affect its value, may make it difficult to sell and may restrict your future use of the land so you might need appropriate compensation for this from the other party.  You may want to put a time limit on the contract or agree a period of notice of termination of the right of way, i.e. if you decide to sell the land or to change the use in a way that restricts the egress route across it, you can give notice to the other party that the contract will end on a certain date (after an agreed period of notice).  They won't like that but they can take it or leave it.

Some responsibility under the RR(FS)O could come your way but only if you were in breach of the contract of providing a safe route across your land.  You will need a solicitor to look after your interests and the other party should foot your bill.

My default position would be No.

[Owain]

Interestingly we had a difficulty in achieving appropriate exit capacity from a social club that backed on to the rear courtyard of a fire station. It would have been so easy to stick a gate in the fence and discharge through the large courtyard to the open frontage of the station. They said no!

I should hope so. Really quite dangerous having people from a social club (where presumably alcohol may be taken) milling about a yard where heavy vehicles may be turning at speed.