Gate across private driveway in cul de sac

Irishpearce26

Mickey666 said:

Irishpearce26 said:

8username8 said:

Irishpearce26 said:

8username8 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Mark the map with the actual boundary to your property. 

Here you go. In dashed yellow:

You just changed the colour not your actual boundary as per your land registry, what does your deeds state? If the shared access is in shaded grey then it is not your boundary but common land. Having lived in a similar plot this is a no go, you aren't entitled to gate it off and you will almost certainly annoy your neighbours.

This is the boundary of my land as per land registry...

I would need to see a picture of the land registry to comment more. No one owns the shared access but usually all responsible for its maintenance. It may fall in your boundary but I would hazard a guess your covenants prohibit you from blocking it which is what a gate would do. Either way if you put a gate up expect some backlash from your neighbours.

Why would no one own the shared drive?  Seems more likely to me that there are three plots, all basically the same as the OPs, ie extending over the shared drive.  So each plot owns the land including the drive on their plot and the drive is only 'shared' in the sense of all plots having a right of way to access the public highway and being jointly responsible for maintenance.  At least that's how a similar group of four new houses near me have been laid out.

I can see no sensible reason for neighbours 1&2 having any right of way over the section of driveway on the OP's plot.

But we're all just guessing and the answer will lie in the deeds to the three houses.

Its classed as common land, you have access and as such responsible for its upkeep but you couldn't build on it or block it off. Whats stopping neighbours 1 & 2 gating their area? What would OP do, knock on the door every time they want access to their house. Hence shared access.

Irishpearce26

8username8 said:

Here is an update.

From title plan:

And relevant sections from deeds:

There is no yellow section in the plan.

There seems to be clear differentiation between my part of a drive in blue and the pass-through part of the drive in brown.

Blue section appears to mean that I need to gain permission of local water supplier. I will get in touch with them this week.

You're ignoring the crosshatch area (shared access) on the LR, why is it different to the rest of your boundary? My experience i can use it, im responsible for its maintenance but I don't own it nor block or build over it. Mine looked the same as yours but my solicitor was great in telling me my responsibilities and limitations.

I understand why you want to do it, who wouldn't! If I was your neighbour though id be hacked off.

NameUnavailable

I'm guessing the road could also be used for additional parking as/when necessary - apart from the area you fence off and deny your neighbours any use of?

Section62

princeofpounds said:

- you have covenanted not to erect any structure over your section of the driveway without the permission of the water authority. It is highly unlikely that the developer would actually enforce this covenant.

My working assumption would be that clause 13 exists due to a binding legal agreement of some kind in favour of the RWA, and on that basis enforcement of this covenant might be a matter for the current water company rather than the developer.

princeofpounds said:

The water authority may turn up one day demanding access, but that is also practically unlikely (indeed it wouldn't matter if you had covenanted to the developer or not; they can access your land if they need to) and possibly resolved by just opening the gate, unless they want to access something underneath it.

There are different rights of access for statutory undertakers, in part dependent on urgency, with some of those rights requiring the prior service of notice to enter.

On the evidence so far, the water company currently have the right to walk (or take "vehicle, plant or equipment") onto the OP's property at any time to do anything they want, such as accessing the manhole which presumably relates to their equipment.  No need to serve notice, or even ask permission, not even to smile and wave politely.

Having the manhole behind the new gate would represent a lesser right of access than they currently enjoy.  The "resolved by just opening the gate" point doesn't help much if the OP (or a future owner) has decided to install an electrically operated gate and decides to go off on holiday for two weeks (it happens).

Again, it is quite an assumption that it is "practically unlikely" the water company would need to gain access to the manhole/sewer.  Some manholes need regular access.  Some don't need access for a long time, but when that need arises it is often urgent and anything which impedes access (like an electrically operated gate) is very unwelcome.

If it is related, that wide hatched area on the OP's plan would suggest to me that this is no 'bog standard' sewer.  And if so, the water company's asset protection team are likely to give the OP's request to gate this area off a long hard think, not least being mindful of the fines that the courts now see fit to impose in the event of sewage spills.

In any event, it isn't clear that consent to obstruct access can easily be given - the process might be rather more complicated than it first appears.

8username8

NameUnavailable said:

I'm guessing the road could also be used for additional parking as/when necessary - apart from the area you fence off and deny your neighbours any use of?

Yes, parking on the main road is free and a lot of neighbors who have more than 2 cars in the household do so.

8username8

Irishpearce26 said:

8username8 said:

Here is an update.

From title plan:

And relevant sections from deeds:

There is no yellow section in the plan.

There seems to be clear differentiation between my part of a drive in blue and the pass-through part of the drive in brown.

Blue section appears to mean that I need to gain permission of local water supplier. I will get in touch with them this week.

You're ignoring the crosshatch area (shared access) on the LR, why is it different to the rest of your boundary? My experience i can use it, im responsible for its maintenance but I don't own it nor block or build over it. Mine looked the same as yours but my solicitor was great in telling me my responsibilities and limitations.

I understand why you want to do it, who wouldn't! If I was your neighbour though id be hacked off.

Thanks for pointing that out. I am not ignoring it, I did not find any information about it in the deeds so far. If I will, I will post an update.

princeofpounds

Section62 said:

princeofpounds said:

- you have covenanted not to erect any structure over your section of the driveway without the permission of the water authority. It is highly unlikely that the developer would actually enforce this covenant.

My working assumption would be that clause 13 exists due to a binding legal agreement of some kind in favour of the RWA, and on that basis enforcement of this covenant might be a matter for the current water company rather than the developer.

princeofpounds said:

The water authority may turn up one day demanding access, but that is also practically unlikely (indeed it wouldn't matter if you had covenanted to the developer or not; they can access your land if they need to) and possibly resolved by just opening the gate, unless they want to access something underneath it.

There are different rights of access for statutory undertakers, in part dependent on urgency, with some of those rights requiring the prior service of notice to enter.

On the evidence so far, the water company currently have the right to walk (or take "vehicle, plant or equipment") onto the OP's property at any time to do anything they want, such as accessing the manhole which presumably relates to their equipment.  No need to serve notice, or even ask permission, not even to smile and wave politely.

Having the manhole behind the new gate would represent a lesser right of access than they currently enjoy.  The "resolved by just opening the gate" point doesn't help much if the OP (or a future owner) has decided to install an electrically operated gate and decides to go off on holiday for two weeks (it happens).

Again, it is quite an assumption that it is "practically unlikely" the water company would need to gain access to the manhole/sewer.  Some manholes need regular access.  Some don't need access for a long time, but when that need arises it is often urgent and anything which impedes access (like an electrically operated gate) is very unwelcome.

If it is related, that wide hatched area on the OP's plan would suggest to me that this is no 'bog standard' sewer.  And if so, the water company's asset protection team are likely to give the OP's request to gate this area off a long hard think, not least being mindful of the fines that the courts now see fit to impose in the event of sewage spills.

In any event, it isn't clear that consent to obstruct access can easily be given - the process might be rather more complicated than it first appears.

I agree that is possible. I agree with your suggestion to check out the planning obligations, and I think you raise fair concerns about the hatched area.

But with regards to water company access - the point I am trying to make is that it's a risk that the OP can decide to run, or not. It's entirely possible there is no water asset under their segment of the drive. Or that they suddenly turn up one day when the OP is on holiday with a battering ram to get emergency access (which frankly they would do anyway if they actually needed emergency access, covenant or not).

And I wasn't suggesting seeking consent. That's something the water company may not even consider on its own merits. Rather I was trying to get across the realistic risks of a situation where a gate was put up in breach of this covenant. There is nothing intrinsically illegal about breaking a covenant - it's purely a civil matter. So what matters are the potential consequences - possibly a demand to take the gate down, possibly not, depending on how interested the covenant beneficiary is. Possibly a broken gate with no compensation if the water company need emergency access. Possible minor hassle in selling a property in breach of a covenant. That kind of thing. 

princeofpounds

NameUnavailable said:

I'm guessing the road could also be used for additional parking as/when necessary - apart from the area you fence off and deny your neighbours any use of?

It's unlikely that there are any rights to park on the shared accessway (assuming that does refer to the drive). That should be covered in the deed anyway, although the OP hasn't posted that specific paragraph. And, as I mentioned, the OP's part of the drive may not be considered part of the shared accessway anyway - it certainly appears to lack yellow shading.

princeofpounds

Irishpearce26 said:

Mickey666 said:

Irishpearce26 said:

8username8 said:

Irishpearce26 said:

8username8 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Mark the map with the actual boundary to your property. 

Here you go. In dashed yellow:

You just changed the colour not your actual boundary as per your land registry, what does your deeds state? If the shared access is in shaded grey then it is not your boundary but common land. Having lived in a similar plot this is a no go, you aren't entitled to gate it off and you will almost certainly annoy your neighbours.

This is the boundary of my land as per land registry...

I would need to see a picture of the land registry to comment more. No one owns the shared access but usually all responsible for its maintenance. It may fall in your boundary but I would hazard a guess your covenants prohibit you from blocking it which is what a gate would do. Either way if you put a gate up expect some backlash from your neighbours.

Why would no one own the shared drive?  Seems more likely to me that there are three plots, all basically the same as the OPs, ie extending over the shared drive.  So each plot owns the land including the drive on their plot and the drive is only 'shared' in the sense of all plots having a right of way to access the public highway and being jointly responsible for maintenance.  At least that's how a similar group of four new houses near me have been laid out.

I can see no sensible reason for neighbours 1&2 having any right of way over the section of driveway on the OP's plot.

But we're all just guessing and the answer will lie in the deeds to the three houses.

Its classed as common land, you have access and as such responsible for its upkeep but you couldn't build on it or block it off. Whats stopping neighbours 1 & 2 gating their area? What would OP do, knock on the door every time they want access to their house. Hence shared access.

Mickey666 is right - it's a nonsense to suggest it is 'common land' and 'no-one owns it'. It's a nonsense to say that 'if the shared access is shaded grey it is not your boundary'. Grey is not even defined on the title deed, for starters. There is not a universal code for colours or symbols on title plans, although there are common conventions for many things.

ALL land in the UK is owned - by the Crown if by nobody else. And as you can see from the OP's deeds, the land on which the shared drive sits is very likely to be owned by the relevant houses, and certainly is in the OP's case. It's rather that certain other houses will/may have easements (like rights of way) over it (which, incidentally, is what stops neighbours 1&2 gating their areas, not any kind of shared ownership).

Imagining it as one big blob of 'common space' is the wrong mental model that will give you wrong legal answers. 

justworriedabit

Mickey666 said:

Although the driveway is describes as shared, I'd be surprised if neighbour2 has any right of access over the driveway in front of neighbour2 and the house in question.  Similarly for Neighbour1.

Basically the driveway gives the three houses shared access to the public road and there appears to be no reason why either neighbouring house would require access over the driveway outside the house in question.  However, to be absolutely certain of this it would be easy enough to pull down the title deeds for the neighbouring houses from Land Registry.

Having confirmed that neither neibouring house has any right of way over the driveway planned to be gated off, I would just go ahead and install the gate.  I can't see that planning consent would be required (unless the proposed gate is over 2m tall), the reasoning behind it seems perfectly valid and there would seem to be no detriment to the neighbours.

They could claim and rightly so that they are being restricted when turning, three point turns etc, etc and not everyones driving is up to the same speed and if i lived in the house next to the new gate I'd have to be a lot, lot more aware reversing out and then trying to drive straight out.

Ask them what they think and why is the gate required and is it your land and what exactly do the deeds state.