PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Neighbour wants to fence off end of shared access driveway

Options
2

Comments

  • stuhse
    stuhse Posts: 303 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 22 December 2023 at 5:35PM
    What's the actual wording of each right of way for each house. ? I can see that d needs a right of way over a, but does a have a right of way over d ?  If any of a , b ,c have rights over d, then d has no right to erect a fence between c and d.  If none of a , b or c has rights over d then they can erect a fence if they wish.

    Planning permission will not consider private  rights of way, the granting of it or not gives no indication at all about the right to fence between c and d.  Only the wording of the rights of way for each property will determine the right to erect a fence.

    A b and c would have no right to use the new section of drive if it were built.
  • AlexMac
    AlexMac Posts: 3,064 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    The only possible issue for any subsequent sale of House C (and potentially A&B) is that if the buyers’ solicitor notices this and points it out to their client, they could use it to try to demand a reduction in price, or rectification of the deeds at the sellers’ expense. 

    Unlikely, but a mate of mine who worked in property development was quite aggressive in negotiating when he discovers a minor flaw in the title because there was ambiguity in the title; a trivial inconsistency about access across the frontage of a 2-flat Victorian conversion to the side gates to the shared garden. Knocked a few grand off!  Ironically he later bought the ground floor flat ( as well as his 1st floor one) and converted it all back to the original house 

    probabLy so unlikely as to be inconsequential but you could ask a conveyancer?
  • bobster2
    bobster2 Posts: 949 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 22 December 2023 at 5:45PM
    stuhse said:
    What's the actual wording of each right of way for each house. ? I can see that d needs a right of way over a, but does a have a right of way over d ?  If any of a , b ,c have rights over d, then d has no right to erect a fence between c and d.  If none of a , b or c has rights over d then they can erect a fence if they wish.

    Planning permission will not consider private  rights of way, the granting of it or not gives no indication at all about the right to fence between c and d.  Only the wording of the rights of way for each property will determine the right to erect a fence.

    A b and c would have no right to use the new section of drive if it were built.
    Yes - A, B & C have a right of way over D's part of the drive. But currently they have no real use for it - as they can't get anywhere by exercising this right!
    D definitely is restricted from erecting a fence by the covenants. However, if D does erect the fence - is there any point in A,B & C paying a solicitor to take action on a point of principle? To get the fence taken down? When they don't have any reason to exercise their right of way?
    If the new accessway is built it would be on council land - so in theory A,B & C could use it - but have just noticed there would be sliver of D's land between the new accessay and the current right of way - which would create a discontinuity - so A, B & C would not be able to use the new accessway to get to the drive that they have a right of way over.
  • stuhse
    stuhse Posts: 303 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 22 December 2023 at 6:29PM
    The drawing doesn't show how much space there is or the drives to each property.. Potentially c is the most likely loser with no room to reverse off their drive to swing towards d to then drive out or vice versa ? Overall there will be less room for shunting and manoeuvring when multiple vehicles turn up/ try to access egress at the same time.
  • bobster2
    bobster2 Posts: 949 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 22 December 2023 at 6:35PM
    stuhse said:
    The drawing doesn't show how much space there is or the drives to each property.. Potentially c is the most likely loser with no room to reverse off their drive to swing towards d to then drive out or vice versa ? Overall there will be less room for shunting and manoeuvring when multiple vehicles turn up/ try to access egress at the same time.
    It's quite spacious. Essentially A&B have not up until now had any need to exercise their right of way over D's land.
    They wouldn't really suffer any detriment if D built the fence. In fact they'd benefit by not having D drive over their land anymore.
    The question is - are there any long term implications I'm missing? I think this is perhaps the most significant...
    AlexMac said:
    The only possible issue for any subsequent sale of House C (and potentially A&B) is that if the buyers’ solicitor notices this and points it out to their client, they could use it to try to demand a reduction in price, or rectification of the deeds at the sellers’ expense. 

    Unlikely, but a mate of mine who worked in property development was quite aggressive in negotiating when he discovers a minor flaw in the title because there was ambiguity in the title; a trivial inconsistency about access across the frontage of a 2-flat Victorian conversion to the side gates to the shared garden. Knocked a few grand off!  Ironically he later bought the ground floor flat ( as well as his 1st floor one) and converted it all back to the original house 

    probabLy so unlikely as to be inconsequential but you could ask a conveyancer?


  • stuhse
    stuhse Posts: 303 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    To prevent potential issues with future sales, I would suggest that a,b and c get together, and suggest to d that if they wish to put a fence up, then they must relinquish their rights of way accross each property and pay the legal fees associated with modifying the deeds.

    D is going to want a fence to give privacy and to prevent unauthorised use of their new access by (for example) white van man delivering to a,b and c.
  • stuhse
    stuhse Posts: 303 Forumite
    Third Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper
    Another thought....D could be a bit cute and put a gate between c and d.
  • Grumpy_chap
    Grumpy_chap Posts: 18,218 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Is the road of a class that requires Planning Permission for a dropped kerb and crossover?
    I assume it must be otherwise the owner of D would not be going down the planning application route.

    As well as Planning Permission, the owner of D will subsequently require Highways Authorisation.

    What is the mindset of the Local Authority to this type of cross over being constructed (and the loss of grass verge)?  Is there a precedent for similar in the street? In my LA area the mindset would be to refuse both the Planning Application and the Highways Authority.  That would make the whole concern moot (assuming D would not fence off the drive without the new access).
  • Is the road of a class that requires Planning Permission for a dropped kerb and crossover?
    I assume it must be otherwise the owner of D would not be going down the planning application route.

    As well as Planning Permission, the owner of D will subsequently require Highways Authorisation.

    What is the mindset of the Local Authority to this type of cross over being constructed (and the loss of grass verge)?  Is there a precedent for similar in the street? In my LA area the mindset would be to refuse both the Planning Application and the Highways Authority.  That would make the whole concern moot (assuming D would not fence off the drive without the new access).
    In general most cross-overs currently seem to be shared by 2 or more properties. And look like they've been there a while. This proposed new one would be between some mature trees and where the verge is a bit humped - perhaps creating visibility problems meaning it could be refused on safety grounds.
  • Grumpy_chap
    Grumpy_chap Posts: 18,218 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    In our LA area, a new crossover impacting a grass verge and near mature trees would likely be refused because of potential for harm to the trees if the ground is impacted by the new construction / vehicle load.  Depends how near "between some trees" means.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 257.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.