Gate across private driveway in cul de sac

NameUnavailable

Mickey666 said:

Section62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Seems strange that part 13 restricts the erection of any "building or structure" on the OP's blue patch but ALLOWS the erection of a hedge.  What, in practical terms, is the difference between a hedge and a gate - other than the fact that a gate can easily be swung open to allow the water authority to access the blue patch whereas an apparently allowable hedge could not be so easily moved?

I think it makes sense if clause 13 (as I've suggested) relates to some earlier agreement between a previous land owner and the RWA.  In other words, the situation that existed prior to the development.

If the double-hatched area is something like a protection zone or easement for an asset (such as a trunk main or high pressure rising main) - and that existed prior to the development - then it makes sense that the RWA wanted to stop it being built over, to be able to access it, but in turn were willing to allow the owner (possibly a farmer?) to plant a hedge as a boundary/shelter feature, provided it wasn't one which would grow in a way which meant the roots would interfere with the asset.  Subsequent (temporary) removal of a hedge to be able to work on an asset wouldn't have been considered a big issue in a rural/farming context.

During and post-development the building over and access requirements remain relevant.  But for the OP the hedge provision is something of an anachronism, although it might be relevant to them and neighbours 1 and 2 if they wanted to plant a front boundary hedge which might lie just inside the double-hatched area.

I think it likely this asset existed before the development as it appears from the plan that the houses have been built to fit around it.  The size and position of the property to the left looks as if it has been done very carefully to just keep out of the zone.  Likewise, I suspect the layout of the OP's 'estate' was done to maximise the development potential within the constraint imposed by the asset.  Without that constraint the developer could have achieved a better outcome by dividing the plot into quarters and having a central (and much shorter) shared road/drive.

Thus the reason for the shared access way being as long as it is (as per a previous post of mine) could be because it was the simplest way of satisfying the RWA that their asset would be permanently accessible and not harmed by future domestic activity.

Fair enough, in which case erecting a gate would be no more restrictive to the RWA than hedge, which seems to be explicitly allowed.  Indeed, it could be argued that removing a gate from its hinges to allow access would be a lot easier and quicker than removal of a hedge, should the RWA require access.

Why would anyone plant a hedge across the road thereby blocking any vehicular access to their house/driveway?

davidmcn

Mickey666 said:

davidmcn said:

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.

Agreed . . . which is why it seems strange, to me at least, why a hedge is specifically allowed.

Note the reference to roots - with underground pipes/cables there tends to be concerns about planting trees (because of what big roots might do) but they'll allow smaller shrubbery. 

Irishpearce26

I think the issue on planting a hedge is based on roots affecting the pipes. One thing to consider is would a gate affect others access to and from driveways, i.e. if they were to reverse out of their drive? As I've said before i used to live in a similar situation regarding shared access and it can be messy, i have no doubt that if the owners feels they can add a gate they will no doubt sour their relationship with the neighbours. They may be ok with that but could cause future disputes when selling.

Sistergold

NameUnavailable said:

Another thought, for the neighbour next door in particular, the OP and any visitors will be stopping outside the neighbours house, most likely with the engine running, whilst opening said gate or delivery drivers unloading parcels/shopping and walking it up to the house. This might also block said neighbour if they were to want to enter/exit at the same time....

I second this. Putting a gate will infact mean now you will annoy neighbours by you now stopping in front of their patch to access your gate. I would really be annoyed as without a gate you drive quickly into your yard and so do your visitors. It is your land but for good neighbourly relationships it’s better open than gated.
neighbor 1 should be able to drive a bit into your part and reverse back into their drive to park if they need to. 

8username8

Few clarification to @Section62

Section62 said:

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?

There is a key, but it is a purely technical drawing. Key refers to diameters of pipes:

Section62 said:

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?

This comes from the deeds that came with the house. In particular the first part of the document that I referred to previously (DYXXXXXXX). That's the same document that details limitations of the blue and brown colored plots.Section62 said:

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.

So far no luck finding other versions of DYXXXXXXX. I will try requesting them from HM Land Registry. Looks like copies are available This may take a while.

8username8

At this point I would like to thank everyone for contributing to discussion.

I will now take the take the following steps:

•  Contact RWA asking for clarification and if applicable written consent
•  Request copies of deeds from HM Land Registry.

I will post back here when I have more updates. This might take a while and I will not be actively participating in this thread until I have an update.

UnderOffer

I think another poster already suggested this, but is it not easier to fence up around your frontage rather than installing a gate? Something like this indicated in blue?

8username8

UnderOffer said:

I think another poster already suggested this, but is it not easier to fence up around your frontage rather than installing a gate? Something like this indicated in blue?

Yes, I've considered this. This is plan "B" in case plan "A" does not work out. Yet this will not make difference to RWA. And from what I gathered so far, RWA appears to be the primary concern, not the neighbors.

zagubov

OP, apologies if this has already been covered but is there a parking space in front of your property?
Obviously your visitors can park in front of your neighbours or your own, but your neighbours will have to open your gate for their visitors to park there. 
I can see disputes coming up.

Slinky

Are you planning on electrifying these gates? Otherwise you'll be having to get out of your car and open them every time you pass through them. Can see boredom of doing that creeping in, and the gates forever remaining open......