Gate across private driveway in cul de sac

Section62

Thanks @8username8

8username8 said:

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

That's fine. It confirms the sewer is in public ownership (i.e. consistent with former RWA ownership), is being used for foul sewage, and is gravity (rather than pumped).

The plan states 300mm VC - being the diameter and material. VC (Vitrified Clay) is a standard material for this purpose and shouldn't raise any special concerns.

300mm is quite a large diameter for a foul (only) sewer and implies it is serving a catchment of some size, not just a neighbouring block of houses.  That should make the water company more sensitive to any work that might impact on the sewer physically or operationally.

8username8 said:

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.

The source of this is something to include in your ongoing research then. The wording differs from that for the RWA and relates to a different period of time (as well as obviously being in a different typeface).

You'll need to find out if it is an amendment or substitution to the arrangements with the RWA, or if it has resulted from an undertaking given to another party - for example in response to a planning consent condition.

I'd be inclined to think it was more likely to be a planning condition, except for the wording "boundary or other fences which are of an easily removable character" which implies the primary concern was about access, rather than appearance.

But one speculative possibility could be that the water company - as a statutory consultee - asked for a planning condition to protect their asset. If so, even though it largely duplicates the previous agreement with the RWA, the process you would need to go through to get 'consent' would be different and in parallel. In that scenario you would need confirmation from the planning authority that your proposals are compatible with the condition (if one exists).

Good luck with your research, you've got an interesting and out of the ordinary challenge to solve.

Section62

Mickey666 said:

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

Because the owner of the land when the agreement was originally made only wanted a hedge?  Or the RWA was willing to allow a hedge, but didn't want a structure like a fence or gate?

We will probably never know, but what matters now is whether the successor body is happy with the access and operational constraints imposed by gating the OP's part of the road/drive.

Mickey666 said:

If 'smaller shrubbery' is allowed then why would a gate not be allowed . . . after all gates tend to have even shallower roots than 'smaller shrubbery' plus it would easier to move out of the way if and when access is actually required! 

Because a 'gate' is not a 'hedge'?

Gates need to be fixed to gate posts. To support a gate which might be the best part of 4m wide the post will need to be 'rooted' something like 2.5 to 3 feet (possibly more) into the ground. That would be considerably more than any substantial roots of the kind of hedge described.

Mickey666 said:

This is irrelevant.

The issue is whether the neighbours have a right to access the 'blue patch' bit of driveway in front of the OP's house.  This is all we need to know.

If they DO have a right to access that blue patch then gating it off is obviously the wrong thing to do.

If they DON'T have a right to access that blue patch the gating it off is entirely up to the OP and there's nothing the neighbours can do about it. 

I wouldn't be so confident. That comment only looks at the issue from a RoW point of view. There are other things the neighbours could do if they are aggrieved.  We don't know anything about the OP's neighbours, and it is pointless speculating about them.  But in general terms, adopting an "I'm within my rights" approach is risky when the full facts are not known.

Also, if the neighbours have been reversing onto the OP's patch for 'x' years previously, how might that affect things?

Mickey666 said:

Yes, they might be upset if it restricts their reversing habits, but bear in mind that if they DON'T have a right over that blue patch then they would have effectively been trespassing on the OPs land in the first place!

And finally, related to trespassing, what is your take on the rights of the OP to have their visitors/tradespeople park on N1 and N2's property (e.g. to make deliveries), and even for the OP themselves to park in front of N1/N2 for the time it would take to open/close the gate(s)?

Is there a quid pro quo situation here that could be disrupted by preventing the neighbours using the OP's part of the drive?

davidmcn

Mickey666 said:

davidmcn said:

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. 

Are you deliberately missing the point?

If 'smaller shrubbery' is allowed then why would a gate not be allowed . . . after all gates tend to have even shallower roots than 'smaller shrubbery' plus it would easier to move out of the way if and when access is actually required! 

I'm not interpreting the wording as prohibiting a gate, just explaining why there's a specific permission to plant hedges (which generally arises because there's a prohibition against planting trees).

Irishpearce26

Did the OP put the gate up in the end?

Mickygg

I really hope for the sake of the next door neighbour they didn't. Suddenly the turning circle would be their neighbours driveway and not the end of the shared driveway.