Driveway Access - Pinch Points - Knowing My Rights for Right of Way

user1977

markin said:

On the other matter Letter head of 'David and David' rather than 'David and David law' would keep it in the law but looking more 'official'

No, it's still a completely potty idea. But would give the other guy's solicitor a good laugh I suppose.

Section62

MattFurious said:

The pinch point of the RoW is 3.8m which is naturally occurring, so that should be the determining factor for the width.

Developers are usually required to provide a 'visibility splay' at the end of a driveway leading onto a main road, and quite often (for multi-plot development) need to make the first 'x' metres of the drive wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass.

I notice there is no visibility splay shown on the plan for your driveway, and the exit onto what I assume is the highway is as narrow as the narrow parts of the drive, if not narrower.  Is that the case?  That the exit onto the highway is the narrowest (or equal narrowest) part of the drive?

Also, is the driveway more or less level, or does it slope up or down significantly towards the road?

Section62

markin said:

On the other matter Letter head of 'David and David' rather than 'David and David law' would keep it in the law but looking more 'official'  The Dangers of internet forums lol, I've seen it suggested many times.

Again, there's absolutely no need to make a letter to either the neighbour or the neighbour's solicitor look "official".

Looking "official" only affects people who don't understand the law and can be frightened into doing something they don't legally need to do.  Neither the neighbour or the neighbour's solicitor sound like people who fall into that category.

MattFurious

Section62 said:

MattFurious said:

The pinch point of the RoW is 3.8m which is naturally occurring, so that should be the determining factor for the width.

Developers are usually required to provide a 'visibility splay' at the end of a driveway leading onto a main road, and quite often (for multi-plot development) need to make the first 'x' metres of the drive wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass.

I notice there is no visibility splay shown on the plan for your driveway, and the exit onto what I assume is the highway is as narrow as the narrow parts of the drive, if not narrower.  Is that the case?  That the exit onto the highway is the narrowest (or equal narrowest) part of the drive?

Also, is the driveway more or less level, or does it slope up or down significantly towards the road?

The driveway has a very slight slope leading into the garage at the back, but overall, I would say that the whole area is flat though.  No major slope getting in or out.

The width at the entrance is actually slightly wider than the gap between their garage and my small wall that runs between our 2 houses.  so 3.8m there and 4.1m at the entrance/exit to the main road.

For the initial bulge, it would be good to understand if it was done that way as a passing place...

Ath_Wat

MattFurious said:

Ath_Wat said:

I think you'll find that you won't get anywhere as long as you can get up and down it past a parked car - those lines apply, I would have thought, to permanent restrictions.

They can of course put whatever they like on their land any time they like, as long as they move it when you need to get by.  if they habitually parked a car in a way that you had to ask them to move it, you might have a case.  I am fairly sure you won't have one if it has never impeded you.

I may not get anywhere, but until I know my rights, I do not know how far I could get...

Which is why I am telling you that the lines you are quoting will refer to permanent, not temporary, obstructions. 

MattFurious

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

Ath_Wat said:

I think you'll find that you won't get anywhere as long as you can get up and down it past a parked car - those lines apply, I would have thought, to permanent restrictions.

They can of course put whatever they like on their land any time they like, as long as they move it when you need to get by.  if they habitually parked a car in a way that you had to ask them to move it, you might have a case.  I am fairly sure you won't have one if it has never impeded you.

I may not get anywhere, but until I know my rights, I do not know how far I could get...

Which is why I am telling you that the lines you are quoting will refer to permanent, not temporary, obstructions. 

Thanks.  They are 2 separate items.

1. The minimum passable RoW based on the deeds and the brown tinted area - Perm Obstructions (3.8m minimum)

2. The minimum passable RoW based on their cars parked in places in a semi-perm placements - Temp Obstructions (2.9m minimum evidenced - It has been a lot less than this)

Titus_Wadd

Where there is any other available option I'd investigate those first.  If you can avoid litigation do avoid it, because over and above the cost in £s it will take a huge toll on you in other ways.

Finding out where you stand and what rights and duties both parties have is the best way for OP to make the right decision for his household.

In my own experience the land-owner cannot accept that in creating a right of way on his land he has reduced his rights to do what the hell he likes on his road.  Now he may have been ill-advised by the lawyer who drafted the wording of the RoW when our plot was split from his; but having had it explained by his solicitor he persists in halving our exit point on to our right of way and the deliberate blockage has been in place for 24/7 for 2 years.  We'll still avoid litigation for as long as possible.  We don't want to move.  If the OP is planning to move that would probably be the best way to go.

Ath_Wat

In your case I don't know what happened; in this case he is not "doing what the hell he likes"; he is parking a car in a  position which leaves plenty of room for the OP to pass.

The OP only wants to stop him parking the car there because the neighbour won't let him wash his car and his kids play on it.

Ath_Wat

MattFurious said:

Ath_Wat said:

MattFurious said:

Ath_Wat said:

I think you'll find that you won't get anywhere as long as you can get up and down it past a parked car - those lines apply, I would have thought, to permanent restrictions.

They can of course put whatever they like on their land any time they like, as long as they move it when you need to get by.  if they habitually parked a car in a way that you had to ask them to move it, you might have a case.  I am fairly sure you won't have one if it has never impeded you.

I may not get anywhere, but until I know my rights, I do not know how far I could get...

Which is why I am telling you that the lines you are quoting will refer to permanent, not temporary, obstructions. 

Thanks.  They are 2 separate items.

1. The minimum passable RoW based on the deeds and the brown tinted area - Perm Obstructions (3.8m minimum)

2. The minimum passable RoW based on their cars parked in places in a semi-perm placements - Temp Obstructions (2.9m minimum evidenced - It has been a lot less than this)

The point is that if you need more space to pass, he can move his car.

If you need more space to pass on a regular basis, he can stop parking it there.

At the moment you don't need more space to pass, and he can leave the car there, just as he could leave his bins there, providing you can pass.

If the drive was fifty feet wide do you think you could go to court demanding he move a flowerpot off it because you had to be able to drive on the whole of it at any given time?  Of course not; it is ridiculous.

If you can make a case that the restricted space is genuinely a problem for you then maybe you have something, but is it? really?  Can you convince a court that it is?

It's your money, and if you are happy to spend it just to try and annoy your neighbour then go ahead.

Section62

Ath_Wat said:

The OP only wants to stop him parking the car there because the neighbour won't let him wash his car and his kids play on it.

My reading of the situation is more that Matt wishes to find out what the facts are to be better informed about both party's rights and responsibilities, and to explore whether there should be more equality in the situation than the neighbour seems to be willing to allow for.

The impression I get from this thread is some posters might be inclined to encourage the neighbour to adopt a more rigid approach.  Weird.  Both sides could benefit from a more relaxed approach to something they each have to live with, thanks to an apparently arbitrary decision made by the developer.