The neighbour of my immediate neighbour threatening to break my fence if I try to install it.

bouicca21

Not a zillion miles from Harrow in Ruislip where I grew up the 1930s built terraces had back alleys that were concreted and wide enough for a dustcart or coal lorry, let alone a car.  Those were the days when the bin men collected the bins from your back garden gate. Not wide enough for a modern car to do a 3 point turn or for a modern dustcart.

So it is entirely possible that OP’s alleyway is for vehicular access as well as pedestrian.  We simply don’t know until he checks further (possibly on those covenants?).

Abid_shah

bouicca21 said:

Not a zillion miles from Harrow in Ruislip where I grew up the 1930s built terraces had back alleys that were concreted and wide enough for a dustcart or coal lorry, let alone a car.  Those were the days when the bin men collected the bins from your back garden gate. Not wide enough for a modern car to do a 3 point turn or for a modern dustcart.

So it is entirely possible that OP’s alleyway is for vehicular access as well as pedestrian.  We simply don’t know until he checks further (possibly on those covenants?).

Thanks is there a way to get those covenants? From land registry?

Section62

Abid_shah said:

Ok thanks and what about the width of that Right of Way? 

The land upto the red wall is my land subject to right of way, so how would I find the acceptable width of the right of way? I am leaving wider space than no 17 and no 19 as a right of way and my space for Right of way will be a bit wider than the entrance between our houses 21 and 19. Do you think no 17 still has the right to ask for more wider space?
thanks

Sorry, I've covered this in several of my posts already.  Could I politely suggest you go back reread them for the detail.

In summary, it isn't a case of 'x' width or something compared to 17/19.  You need to maintain the RoW at the width it originally was.  The aerial pictures markin helpfully posted should aid you in working out what that might be, although the fencelines in those may have already varied from the original layout.

If the position on the ground can't be established then I would suggest you talk to the neighbour at number 17 and try to agree with them what land is necessary for them to make the turn.  Although that wouldn't necessarily have a legal basis, as he is the only one who appears to be objecting if you can reach agreement that might put an end to the dispute.  It is possible - through such dialogue - that you may be able to agree a fence position which gives you more garden space than going down the 'legal' route may eventually leave you with.

There's no point having a row with a neighbour if you can sort something out which is mutually beneficial.

Ath_Wat

Section62 said:

Abid_shah said:

Ok thanks and what about the width of that Right of Way? 

The land upto the red wall is my land subject to right of way, so how would I find the acceptable width of the right of way? I am leaving wider space than no 17 and no 19 as a right of way and my space for Right of way will be a bit wider than the entrance between our houses 21 and 19. Do you think no 17 still has the right to ask for more wider space?
thanks

Sorry, I've covered this in several of my posts already.  Could I politely suggest you go back reread them for the detail.

In summary, it isn't a case of 'x' width or something compared to 17/19.  You need to maintain the RoW at the width it originally was.  The aerial pictures markin helpfully posted should aid you in working out what that might be, although the fencelines in those may have already varied from the original layout.

If the position on the ground can't be established then I would suggest you talk to the neighbour at number 17 and try to agree with them what land is necessary for them to make the turn.  Although that wouldn't necessarily have a legal basis, as he is the only one who appears to be objecting if you can reach agreement that might put an end to the dispute.  It is possible - through such dialogue - that you may be able to agree a fence position which gives you more garden space than going down the 'legal' route may eventually leave you with.

There's no point having a row with a neighbour if you can sort something out which is mutually beneficial.

Unfortunately it seems to me that the OP's whole objective is not to fence off his garden to maximise the space he has, but to fence off his garden in a way that stops his "problem" neighbour from using it for vehicular access.  There's no point him agreeing something that works for both parties; that's the last thing he wants.

Section62

Ath_Wat said:

Unfortunately it seems to me that the OP's whole objective is not to fence off his garden to maximise the space he has, but to fence off his garden in a way that stops his "problem" neighbour from using it for vehicular access.  There's no point him agreeing something that works for both parties; that's the last thing he wants.

There is that.  And if the OP follows the suggestion of concreting in a RSJ on the corner of his garden it could act as prima facie evidence that his intent was to obstruct the RoW, rather than just making an innocent mistake in positioning his fence.  Reasonable people wouldn't normally think it was necessary to go to such an extreme length unless there was a pre-existing problem with vehicles damaging their fence (not the case here).

Various people also commented on the planning side of the neighbour's possible business activity.  Likewise, moving your boundary fence to incorporate what was previously a RoW into your garden may require planning consent.  So a complaint to the planners about business planning breaches may backfire with a counter complaint about modifications to the gardens/RoW.  From a planning perspective, the ability for vehicles to turn round at the end of the RoW is a relevant consideration, and consent is unlikely to be given to changing the layout of the OP's garden/RoW if it means vehicles needing to be reversed along the whole length of the RoW and out onto the road backwards.

In situations like this it is important to think about the consequences of your actions... and attempting to get on with people rather than seeking conflict is usually better. (by/for both sides)