My ongoing boundary dispute ordeal/odyssey (advice sought)

pobjoy

Unless my neighbours do something seriously vindictive, it's highly unlikely I'll contact the council. I could end up living nextdoor to them for decades to come, so pointlessly intensifying animosity makes no sense.

>>the question is whether the council will ask the neighbour to reinstate ~1.5m^2 of grass, or just go 'whatevs'.

I estimate around 6m^2 of council land has been paved. 

Section62

pobjoy said:

Unless my neighbours do something seriously vindictive, it's highly unlikely I'll contact the council. I could end up living nextdoor to them for decades to come, so pointlessly intensifying animosity makes no sense.

I agree, for the reasons in my previous post and the comments below.

pobjoy said:

>>the question is whether the council will ask the neighbour to reinstate ~1.5m^2 of grass, or just go 'whatevs'.

I estimate around 6m^2 of council land has been paved. 

The path and the vehicle crossover were already paved, I was talking about the area of grass between the path and the drive as being about 1.5m^2.

Resurfacing the path and crossover shouldn't have been done without permission, but is relatively inconsequential.  If the land is non-highway then the council would probably have to take action through the courts to recover their costs in restoring the area back to how it was, and for what reason?  The only (almost) sensible argument they could make is that the loss of 1.5m^2 of grass means more surface water runoff and the layby looks a little less 'green'.  If asked, the council Chief Executive would struggle to argue that doing the work and taking legal action had been a sensible use of council money.

If the land is highway then the neighbour has possibly committed an offence under either the Highways Act 1980 (e.g. S131), or NRSWA. If so, in theory they could be prosecuted for it, and the highway authority could seek to recover the costs of reinstating the path, grass and crossover with materials of the council's choice.  But I really don't see them bothering with that.

The highway authority would also be ill-advised to go after the neighbours - who have already suggested you've been harassing them - whilst ignoring the point that although you have a dropped kerb, (from your photos) you don't appear to have a proper vehicle crossover.  Whilst there is nothing legally wrong in you driving over the verge to get to your property, the council would have trouble explaining their need to prosecute the neighbour, whilst ignoring the potential damage being done by your use of the verge next door.  In any event, the highway authority visiting the site to inspect what the neighbour has done may notice your own access arrangement.  The consequence of either scenario potentially being a S184 notice being served on you, with the effect you'd have to pay to have a proper vehicle crossover constructed.  I emphasise again that you don't appear to be doing anything legally wrong at the moment, but if the hornet's nest gets kicked then it could cost you a fair proportion of what the neighbour has paid you for the land.

For these reasons it would be a better outcome for you if this strip of land isn't highway, and that the council aren't given a reason to start investigating land ownership and driveways.

pobjoy

The previous owners of my house got planning permission when they installed the drive (originally it was a hedged front garden inaccessible to cars) so I'm not worried on that score. There's no record of my neighbours getting permission to turn their front garden into a parking area, but perhaps it wasn't necessary as their new parking surface is permeable and didn't require any kerb alterations.

Section62

pobjoy said:

The previous owners of my house got planning permission when they installed the drive (originally it was a hedged front garden inaccessible to cars) so I'm not worried on that score. There's no record of my neighbours getting permission to turn their front garden into a parking area, but perhaps it wasn't necessary as their new parking surface is permeable and didn't require any kerb alterations.

Not wanting to divert the thread too much, but planning consent isn't the issue.  Planning consent doesn't override the need to gain permission from the owner of the land (the council) that you need to drive over to get to the highway, nor does it override the highway authority's powers under S184 to require a properly constructed crossover.

Unless your road is classified (A, B, C) or is in a conservation area then I don't see a reason why your driveway would have needed planning consent.  Likewise, if it is a classified road or a conservation area, then the neighbour would have needed planning consent for the original driveway, but not for the additional paving of the front garden if permeable surfacing was used, or the area is less than 5m^2.  Kerb alterations don't usually require planning consent, and definitely wouldn't if it is highway land.

This is why I am saying that without knowing the exact legal position it would be unwise to get the council involved.  Or borrowing from a colloquial expression, never pee over the fence into the neighbour's garden without checking the wind direction first.

pobjoy

 "I don't see a reason why your driveway would have needed planning consent."

I know next to nothing about planning permission regs, but examining the docs available online related to my drive, there seems to have been lots of communication about the layby in front of the houses. Originally the previous owners wanted to put in a drive perpendicular to the lay-by, but after input from the planning officer and the parish council, who were concerned about loss of a parking space, the plan was changed to a drive angled at the same angle as the shared path. With the angled drive there's room for three cars at the western end of the layby rather than two and a half , and one between my drive and my neighbours' drive. Maybe this was a factor in the application.

Putting in the drive also required the removal of substantial quantities of earth. The profile of the front garden changed significantly, judging by some of the drawings linked to the application. Maybe that also played a part.      

Section62

pobjoy said:

 "I don't see a reason why your driveway would have needed planning consent."

I know next to nothing about planning permission regs, but examining the docs available online related to my drive, there seems to have been lots of communication about the layby in front of the houses. Originally the previous owners wanted to put in a drive perpendicular to the lay-by, but after input from the planning officer and the parish council, who were concerned about loss of a parking space, the plan was changed to a drive angled at the same angle as the shared path. With the angled drive there's room for three cars at the western end of the layby rather than two and a half , and one between my drive and my neighbours' drive. Maybe this was a factor in the application.

Loss of one or more parking spaces in the layby wouldn't be a reason why full planning consent was needed, and a decision to refuse solely on that basis would probably be overturned on appeal.

pobjoy said:

Putting in the drive also required the removal of substantial quantities of earth. The profile of the front garden changed significantly, judging by some of the drawings linked to the application. Maybe that also played a part.      

Likewise, this wouldn't be a reason why full planning consent was needed.

The work would all be permitted development unless:

1) The road is classified (A, B, C)

2) PD rights don't exist (e.g. conservation area)

3) The size/drainage criteria is not met

Unless they originally proposed an impermeable surface (but didn't build it) the only other thing I can think of is possibly if the verge/layby isn't highway and this land isn't within the curtilage of the house (i.e. the council housing department own it) then there wouldn't be PD rights for the work on the verge/layby.  But I'd be amazed if the council required a planning application to be made in the latter case as the work involved on the council land was so minor.

pobjoy

Interesting information. Thanks.

If I could, I'd ask the previous owners about this. I tried to contact them when the boundary dispute first blew up (I was hoping they could provide additional evidence about the shared path) but they didn't respond.