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

Soot2006

jonnydeppiwish! said:

But the op has written that they want to fence off the RoW at the rear as it hasn’t been used until they cleared it in 2020?

My summarised reading is:

• OP wants to fence off the ROW passageway to separate it from their garden not to include it within their garden.  So they can use their garden without worrying about the strip with a ROW across the back - i.e. securely. 
• The not immediate neighbour doesn't like the idea because they currently drive ON the OP's garden section not just the ROW to execute a 3-point turn.

Woolsery

markin said:

theoretica said:

This is rather interesting for showing the situation in the 1930s - and which properties did and din't have passageway behind them - I would also argue it shows clearly what is passageway - and has ROW over it, and what is garden, and doesn't.  https://maps.nls.uk/view/103657817

It actually looks like the 2 houses have extended the gardens level with the OP's when they should not have.

It looks like all have potential rear access though. The middle houses' gardens may always have been like that.

doodling

Hi,

markin said:

[...]

This map clearly points out the original plan and use, Weather the current neighbours mind or not you should not be blocking the ROW in any way.

It actually looks like the 2 houses have extended the gardens level with the OP's when they should not have.

But also from that plan, then unless the passageways from Roseberry Avenue are wide enough for a vehicle then the passageway at the rear wasn't originally a vehicular right of way.

Has there been a sufficient period of vehicular use of the passageway when access to it was created at the rear that it has now become a vehicular right of way? Evidence of that would be important to support the grumpy neighbour's case, otherwise I don't think he has a right to drive a car down it.

Ath_Wat

doodling said:

Hi,

markin said:

[...]

This map clearly points out the original plan and use, Weather the current neighbours mind or not you should not be blocking the ROW in any way.

It actually looks like the 2 houses have extended the gardens level with the OP's when they should not have.

But also from that plan, then unless the passageways from Roseberry Avenue are wide enough for a vehicle then the passageway at the rear wasn't originally a vehicular right of way.

Has there been a sufficient period of vehicular use of the passageway when access to it was created at the rear that it has now become a vehicular right of way? Evidence of that would be important to support the grumpy neighbour's case, otherwise I don't think he has a right to drive a car down it.

Why the "grumpy" neighbour?  it wasn't him who tried to turn the entire access pathway into his garden and is now annoyed that someone has asked him to return it to its proper use.

doodling

Hi,

Ath_Wat said:

doodling said:

Hi,

markin said:

[...]

This map clearly points out the original plan and use, Weather the current neighbours mind or not you should not be blocking the ROW in any way.

It actually looks like the 2 houses have extended the gardens level with the OP's when they should not have.

But also from that plan, then unless the passageways from Roseberry Avenue are wide enough for a vehicle then the passageway at the rear wasn't originally a vehicular right of way.

Has there been a sufficient period of vehicular use of the passageway when access to it was created at the rear that it has now become a vehicular right of way? Evidence of that would be important to support the grumpy neighbour's case, otherwise I don't think he has a right to drive a car down it.

Why the "grumpy" neighbour?  it wasn't him who tried to turn the entire access pathway into his garden and is now annoyed that someone has asked him to return it to its proper use.

The use of the word "grumpy" was simply a shorthand for "person two doors away who has objected to the proposed fence" - apologies if it offends.

So far as I can tell, the OP is not proposing to obstruct the right of way but to constrain it to its historical extent. Whether the actual right of way now matches its historical extent is a question we don't have enough information to answer.

The proper use of the passageway, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (which might exist but we haven’t yet seen), appears to be on foot or with a barrow or bin, not with a vehicle. So perhaps I should call them the optimistic neighbour?

doodling

Hi,

Having looked on Goigle maps, I realise that an access to the rear from Brookside Close hasn't been created, it is a brick wall (or a rather broken fence).

The passageway would be no wider than the gap between numbers 19 and 21 so providing that that width is maintained between the proposed fence and the wall / fence with Brookside Close then the arrangement would match the historical plan.

There remains a question as to whether users of the passageway have acquired a right to cut across the corner of the OPs garden when turning from the back passage into the passage between 19 and 21 - this would be a matter of provable historical use.

Abid_shah

doodling said:

Hi,

Ath_Wat said:

doodling said:

Hi,

markin said:

[...]

This map clearly points out the original plan and use, Weather the current neighbours mind or not you should not be blocking the ROW in any way.

It actually looks like the 2 houses have extended the gardens level with the OP's when they should not have.

But also from that plan, then unless the passageways from Roseberry Avenue are wide enough for a vehicle then the passageway at the rear wasn't originally a vehicular right of way.

Has there been a sufficient period of vehicular use of the passageway when access to it was created at the rear that it has now become a vehicular right of way? Evidence of that would be important to support the grumpy neighbour's case, otherwise I don't think he has a right to drive a car down it.

Why the "grumpy" neighbour?  it wasn't him who tried to turn the entire access pathway into his garden and is now annoyed that someone has asked him to return it to its proper use.

The use of the word "grumpy" was simply a shorthand for "person two doors away who has objected to the proposed fence" - apologies if it offends.

So far as I can tell, the OP is not proposing to obstruct the right of way but to constrain it to its historical extent. Whether the actual right of way now matches its historical extent is a question we don't have enough information to answer.

The proper use of the passageway, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (which might exist but we haven’t yet seen), appears to be on foot or with a barrow or bin, not with a vehicle. So perhaps I should call them the optimistic neighbour?

My main question is what needs to be the width of the Right of Way over my land to the rear of my Garden?

are there any documents other than mine of neighbours register and plan which will help specify the width of the Right of way at the rear of my garden?

I never used the side passageway as my garden.
thanks

JGB1955

The entrance to the ROW appears to have a dropped kerb (which might indicate that vehicular access is anticipated)? 

Roseberry avenue harrow - Search (bing.com)

Mojisola

Exact measurements aren't usually given but there should be some description such as pedestrian access or access with a barrow or vehicular access. 

diego_94

I think from reading this that the OP is in the right. They want to fence of their garden, leaving the ROW passage there. The neighbour from 2 doors down has taken exception as he wants to use it for cars. From my point of view if he can't get to the back of his garden using the width of the ROW, then he has no right to use other peoples property to achieve his aims. i.e he cant use the OP's garden to manoeuvre a vehicle.

The neighbour has no case here. Report his threats to the police, and continue to build your fence on your land as you feel free, leaving the ROW free.