Gate across private driveway in cul de sac

8username8

princeofpounds said:

PerfectMess said:

8username8 said:

Here is an update.

From title plan:

Personally when I zoom in on my phone I can see a yellow line between the OPs LH red boundary line and the blue shading. 

Yes it's still not clear where the yellow zone actually is. What you see (and the yellow tint of the grey) may just be colours bleeding/mixing or the artefact of a scanner however. Or it could actually be the yellow zone referred to, with some very weird drafting of the plan. The OP still hasn't posted the full plans for the neighbouring houses that really should have yellow zones.

Hello @princeofpounds, neighbouring houses (at least N1 and N2) don't have any other plan than what's already shared. I checked that today.

It could be that the wording is generic and used for more than just these three houses and the yellow zone is actually not applicable to the case. I don't know for sure. One thing I know is that N1 and N2 have the exact same diagram...

Apodemus

Is the yellow shading not simply the highlighter on top of the grey area on plots N1 and N2, with the combined grey and yellow giving the appearance that this is brown? 

davidmcn

Apodemus said:

Is the yellow shading not simply the highlighter on top of the grey area on plots N1 and N2, with the combined grey and yellow giving the appearance that this is brown? 

Yes, it's the only answer which makes sense - many "colour" plans are the end result of somebody colouring in a monochrome copy of the original version. 

unforeseen

davidmcn said:

Apodemus said:

Is the yellow shading not simply the highlighter on top of the grey area on plots N1 and N2, with the combined grey and yellow giving the appearance that this is brown? 

Yes, it's the only answer which makes sense - many "colour" plans are the end result of somebody colouring in a monochrome copy of the original version. 

This could also apply to the blue area as there appears to be yellow edging visible. 

Section62

davidmcn said:

Yes, it's the only answer which makes sense - many "colour" plans are the end result of somebody colouring in a monochrome copy of the original version. 

It also looks to be the answer the OP needs to hope for to avoid other complications, as (in the absence of anything else) if there is no yellow shaded area they appear to have no right to use the shared drive to access their property from the public highway.

Which really wouldn't make sense.

Section62

Mickey666 said:

The blue area relates to the RWA rights and the yellow/brown area (ie ALSO blue) relates to shared access.

Thus, the OP's house has access over the yellow/brown area in front of N1 and N2 in order to access the public highway.  N1 has access over the yellow/brown area in front of N2 for access to the public highway.  NEITHER N1 or N2 has access rights over the OP's blue patch (because it's not required for access to the public road).

Therefore, the OP's proposed gate will not restrict N1 or N2 access rights

That cannot be demonstrated as true without having seen the equivalent plans for the neighbouring properties.

Although the OP has not yet been able to obtain them (if they even still exist) there must have been different versions produced for N1 and N2.  Otherwise all three would have a claim over the land edged in red on the OP's version. That isn't likely to be right.

Other plans (the ones having N1 and N2's land respectively edged in red) might show the OP's section of the shared drive shaded yellow or yellow/brown.

Mickey666 said:

and it certainly won't restrict the RWA rights any more than the allowed hedge because it could be easily opened and swung back in line with the existing fence.

I see no problems here, except perhaps by bolshy neighbours who just want to find something to get all offended about, even though it has no practical impact on them whatsoever.  An ever-increasing trend these days it would seem.

Likewise, that might be your opinion, but the RWA/water company may disagree with you.

A 'hedge' is not legally the same thing as a 'gate'. The wording is very specific about a 'hedge'.  If the agreement was intended to include fences, gates, walls or any other feature then it is likely to have stated that. It just says 'hedge'.

And similarly, anyone's opinion that a gate can easily be opened or removed from its hinges is assuming the gate is one designed to do that. It is very simple to modify a gate to prevent it being removed from its hinges, it is also quite easy to install a gate which cannot be opened or removed without causing very significant damage.


I think the OP needs to approach the water company to ask whether they would be willing to amend the agreement to allow this area to be gated.  They should be aware of the potential need to pay the water company's legal costs in changing the agreement and the need to accept quite strict limitations on the size, position and type of gate to be installed, and to give undertakings not to lock or otherwise secure it in a way which obstructs the water company's access.

Anything agreed must be in writing.  As davidmcn has pointed out, creating a situation on the ground which differs from the current legal position is asking for trouble later.

davidmcn

I don't think a gate (which can be opened) is really an issue for the easement, any more than e.g. having to shift vehicles parked in the way. They'll be more concerned about more permanent obstructions.

Section62

8username8 said:

On my plan, blue dotted line is the sewer according to the title plan. This last details is interesting because it does not match with the information that RWA returned to me during searches. Below is the schematic returned by RWA which frankly speaking makes more sense and is more modern.

The search plan extract is about what I expected to see based on the double-hatched area. Did they provide a key giving details of what that colour and linestyle represents in terms of use and ownership?

8username8 said:

The plan posted earlier (with blue and brown sections) is taken directly from DYXXXXXXXX so I have reasons to believe that N1 and N2 have exactly the same version of the plan without variations. I don't anticipate that HM Land Registry would store different versions of the same document and bother with version control between them. if these were different documents I believe they would be stored under different unique numbers.

As I said in reply to Mickey666, N1 and N2 should have different versions of the plan at least in terms of which areas of land are edged in red.  They may no longer exist, or not be filed with LR, but the red edging is specific to your property.  You would also expect to see the slivers of land on N1 and N2's property (but not part of the access road) shaded in blue (only) if there had only been one plan version existing for all three properties.

8username8 said:

Also here is an interesting detail:

I still cannot find any references to the crosshatch area in DYXXXXXXX.

Any further thoughts / opinions?

This is interesting.  Which document does it come from? The reference to the 1990 Act places it in that year or later.  Is that before or after the properties were built?

The Regional Water Authorities (in England) became water companies in 1989, so the agreement with the RWA would predate this.

brianposter

Mickey666 said:   NEITHER N1 or N2 has access rights over the OP's blue patch (because it's not required for access to the public road).

Therefore, the OP's proposed gate will not restrict N1 or N2 access rights and it certainly won't restrict the RWA rights any more than the allowed hedge because it could be easily opened and swung back in line with the existing fence.

I would come to exactly the opposite conclusion because rights are not determined by whether or not you need them. If the rights are not defined individually one would expect them to be the same for all 3 houses - ie, you can cross my land and I can cross your land.

In practical terms N1 might reasonably expect deliveries to the OP to be made by parking outside the OPs house, not outside N1.

lookstraightahead

Some people who lived on our top floor flat used to use the top of the stairs landing to keep stuff. Their argument was that no one else needed to use it (might be a fire issue, but that aside). But all common areas were for all people, so wondering if this is similar.

Who pays for the maintenance of the private driveway, because some will use more of it than others?