This is a past paper Q that I've come across which I'm having some trouble with! Any help would be great!
In 1970, Anne, the fee simple owner of Glebe Farm, agreed with her neighbour Belinda that Belinda might park her car from time to time in a garage on a corner of one of Anne’s fields near to Belinda’s house.
In 1978, Anne built a large greenhouse along the boundary of one of her fields and began to cultivate vegetables in it for sale. She put up a sign advertising fresh produce on the wall of the neighbouring building belonging to Charles.
Six months ago, Charles conveyed his property to Duncan, who has obtained planning permission to erect a building which will block out the light to Anne’s greenhouse. He has also objected to the presence of Anne’s sign on his building.
By 2006, Belinda had bought an electric car, and soon thereafter she discovered that the garage has electricity and so has now started plugging her car’s batteries into the mains to recharge. She has also acquired the freehold to the house on the other side of her original property for the purpose of letting, and has allowed her tenant Eddie to use Anne’s garage to park his car.
i) Whether she can maintain her sign on Duncan’s wall;
ii) Whether she can object to his planning permission; and
iii) whether she can prevent Belinda from parking her car on Anne’s land and using Anne’s electricity supply.
I just wanted a few pointers with them problem Q.
Firstly, in terms fo the sign, I think there is an easement by presription? In terms of priorities, is it right to apply Sch 1 para 3? Because the conveyance to Duncan would have triggered first reg - so you apply Sch 1?
Secondly, would you say the right to light is definite enough because it is to do with the windows in the greenhouse? So again she's gained an easement to light by prescription?
I'm a bit stuck on the third bit. How would Belinda have acquired a right to park? Prescription again? and I'm not really sure how to go about the electricity part? Is mention of Eddie a bit of a red herring - do they just want you to say that an easement can't benefit non-dominant land?