In the Court of Appeal
Pan Properties Ltd v Darling
Wendy Darling lives in a typical London townhouse with garden. At the rear of the garden there is wasteland owned by Pan Properties Ltd ("PP Ltd"), a construction company. PP Ltd has laid foundations on the site and framed the first five floors of a planned ten-storey apartment block. It now wishes to embark upon the next stage of construction. This necessitates the use of a tall crane to hoist metal joists and girders high above the site. If the long "boom" arm of the crane were fixed when not in use, the crane might fall in a high wind. The boom must therefore be allowed to fly freely over surrounding land, including (as the wind blows) over Wendy’s house and garden. Wendy wishes to prevent the use of any crane near her land (she never reveals it to anyone, but this is down to a long-standing fear of hooks). She refused consent to allow the boom arm to fly over her land, so PP Ltd applied for an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 ("ANLA").
In the High Court, Lorst-Boyes J refused to grant the access order, not on the ground of any hardship or interference that Wendy might suffer (which he considered would be minimal), but on the ground that the over-flight of the crane would amount to a nuisance and ANLA was competent to allow trespass only. He refused the order on the additional ground that the erection of a wholly new building can never amount to "basic preservation works" under ANLA.
Pan Properties Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
1.) That the over-flight of a crane "boom" arm is a trespass not a nuisance.
2.) That the erection of a new building can qualify as "basic preservation works" under ANLA and qualifies as such in the instant case.
© Gary Watt 2007
 | 
