CONSERVATORY/BOUNDARY/RIGHT OF WAY

Norman_Castle

Section62 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Section62 said:

Norman_Castle said:

Assuming the row runs alongside their fence an opening could be made elsewhere and the access through the conservatory blocked without legally moving the row.

 

In the OP's position I wouldn't entertain the idea of creating a new opening and blocking the old one without going through the legal process to formalise it.

Otherwise it will cause questions to be asked in future property sales, and risks the neighbour ending up with two access points rather than just one.

If there's a row alongside your boundary are you obliged to stay on it, only accessing and leaving it at its start and finish or can you leave it at any point?

1) It depends whether the deeds state anything about the points of access/egress.

2) It depends whether the RoW is actually alongside the boundary, or whether there is a strip of land excluded from the RoW between the two.

3) It depends who owns any boundary feature which would need modification to allow access at other points.

1, " our easement states quite simply.." There is a right of way, with our without vehicles for the benefit of No.2 over No.1."

There is nothing else."

2, "If there's a row alongside your boundary"

3, Without further information its a 50/50 chance although, " There is a boundary wall running along the length of the two gardens. This wall is about 3ft high. Our patio is thus 3ft below their garden. They have erected a 6`.6" in fence on top of the wall."https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6275940/property-rights/p1

KEMYST

We managed to get the planning office`s comments when he inspected the site.

The existing configuration of the site is considered to be over developed. However, given that situation is established, it is not considered sufficient reason for refusal of this application. (Even by increasing the over-development. - my words)

 So, planning permission should not have been granted for the original (current) conservatory but, this error was a long time ago - so it is become right now. The conservatory is now being demolished, but, it is acceptable to build another one with the same degree of over-development. Not only that, but it is also perfectly fine to build another conservatory with an even greater level of overdevelopment. 

They have had a new skylight put in and we have had builders constantly using the row for the last four days. The NDN has been parading back and fro in front of us when we have a glass of wine on the patio (as she is entitled to do). We have also been told that my wife`s washing is an obstruction and must be removed for the builders. I`m absolutely dreading the construction of the conservatory. 

 

Doozergirl

Have we got to the point where we're just complaining about anything?  

You bought a house knowing that your neighbours had a right of way.  Sometimes that will get used more than others. 

Not hanging washing out in front of the builders is a courtesy to them but it is a
sensible precaution for you.  

I've got nothing left to say. 

KEMYST

Thanks for your help.

Norman_Castle

Who owns the fence? Have you suggested to either the owners or builders that a panel is removed giving easier access?

Section62

Norman_Castle said:

Who owns the fence? Have you suggested to either the owners or builders that a panel is removed giving easier access?

Altering the common boundary to make it easier for all parties has been suggested several times by different people.  The OP doesn't appear to be interested in pursuing this option.

FWIW I think it could make their lives much more pleasant, and reduce the potential for conflict.

Section62

KEMYST said:

We managed to get the planning office`s comments when he inspected the site.

The existing configuration of the site is considered to be over developed. However, given that situation is established, it is not considered sufficient reason for refusal of this application. (Even by increasing the over-development. - my words)

 So, planning permission should not have been granted for the original (current) conservatory but, this error was a long time ago - so it is become right now. The conservatory is now being demolished, but, it is acceptable to build another one with the same degree of over-development. Not only that, but it is also perfectly fine to build another conservatory with an even greater level of overdevelopment. 

Not quite.

But if the text in bold forms part of the planning officer's reasoned justification for granting consent then there is a possibility of a case of irrationality in the decision-making .(aka "Wednesbury unreasonable")

As you suggest, the established overdevelopment could be used to justify the replacement of the conservatory with a structure of a comparable size.  But increasing the size of the conservatory - particularly by extending it behind your property - is increasing the scale of the overdevelopment.

It could be argued that the reasoning given is irrational - but only if that comment forms part of the formal decision making process.

As consent has already been granted you won't be able to stop the development (at least not without a very expensive Judicial Review).

I think the next best thing you could achieve - possibly - would be to test whether you could get some compensation from the council for giving planning consent for a structure which - possibly - was an irrational decision.  Normally people don't get compensated for planning decisions which have an adverse impact on them, but in your case there is a slender chance you might be entitled to something for loss of amenity.

The starting point is to use the council's formal complaints process, escalating your complaint until the end of that process. At that point you will be entitled to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman. See here -
https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/planning-and-building-control/your-neighbour-s-planning-application

But it is essential that you keep your complaint based on what you believe the council has objectively done wrong (giving consent for a larger building when the existing one was already deemed overdevelopment), rather than complaining about 'everything'.  The possibility of you having a case is based on a very specific point - you don't want that point to get lost in a swamp of complaining.

The outward opening door is the one other issue it might be worth adding to the complaint, but IMV only if you reach ombudsman level. You should continue to deal with the door issue directly with the neighbour, as per the previous advice in this thread.

GDB2222

I think that the question of your washing obstructing the builders is probably quite an interesting point of law, as a brawny builder is most unlikely to be obstructed by a pair of damp socks hanging on a line. But, on a practical basis, it’s clearly not a point worth fighting over at great expense. 

Probably, the best course, however irksome it is for you, is to accept that the builders are coming through from time to time during the day, and the sooner they can get finished the better it is for you. 

Jeepers_Creepers

Kemyst, focus on the task in hand, and don't be distracted by emotive issues which will only serve to add fog and may make you seem, to some degree, unreasonable.

For example, accepting builders have the right to carry tons of materials across the RoW, but pumping concrete not. Or despairing about having to remove your washing if it's restricting rightful access - which it probably is.

Please don't moan about these things - approach them in an understanding manner. Why? Because you'll have to accept them anyway, so might as well do it with dignity, and gain credit for being reasonable and rational about these things.

Focus on the over development (I can't believe what Planning is suggesting either!), and mainly on the outward opening door. For the 'overdevelopment' issue, S62 suggestion sounds good - escalate it up the chain, talk to your local councillor (esp if they are on the planning dept), and generally make a bludy nuisance of yourself to those who want a quiet life. It is surely unreasonable to allow further over-development just because they got away with previous!

Could you add a plan view of the whole layout, so we can see if there are alternative setups that could be broached? We are kind of scuppered by not having this info.

For example, if there is the possibility, as others have suggested, in the neighb moving their garden's access towards the end of their fence, even if that requires steps coming down to your level, then the neighb might help to be persuadable on the mutual benefits of this if you make it clear that, even tho' they have a RoW through the metal gate, this does not cover allowing part of their physical 'property' to encroach over your land, as an outward-opening gate regularly would. So they should think carefully about the longer-term implications of this.

Don't say you will put a post there to stop it (tho' I'd be chomping at the bit to do so...), or will be doing anything to restrict their door's movement, but just leave it as that 'potential trespass' of their property over yours. (Can property trespass?!) And perhaps they can work out for themselves what could happen.

Anyhoo, focus on important stuff, and please post a plan :-)

Slinky

The OP never answered my question about whether the existing gate opens outwards over their land already. Can't see that this is much different to an outward opening door. OP cannot realistically do anything that obstructs this area whether it's a gate or a door.