Advice on Driveway obstruction and potential sale implications

bobster2

@chug91

Now you've mentioned a "shared" driveway - it is extremely difficult to understand the situation from your description and the photos.

Could you please post a diagram? Showing the boundaries of the various properties (i.e. who owns what), with shading to show areas where people have a right of way, and what is public highway.

You should be able to see all this on your title plan.

Grumpy_chap

Section62 said:

Don't blame the planners... they can't do anything if national policy says they can't insist on developers providing 'x' parking spaces per dwelling.

I think we can blame the "Planners" - whether that is the local Planning Authority or guidelines / requirements that cascade from central Government, that is still "Planners" in the wider context.

There is also a tendency for local Planning Authorities to take the national guidelines requirements and add extra over requirements. 
Our Local Authority has a policy that all new developments must be demonstrated to be designed for "car free" living and planning restriction (S4?) to prevent those properties obtaining resident parking permits.
Where, in all honesty, do the representatives of the Local Authority really think the cars will end up if not poorly parked?

chug91

bobster2 said:

@chug91

Now you've mentioned a "shared" driveway - it is extremely difficult to understand the situation from your description and the photos.

Could you please post a diagram? Showing the boundaries of the various properties (i.e. who owns what), with shading to show areas where people have a right of way, and what is public highway.

You should be able to see all this on your title plan.

Digram in attached link.
ibb.co…DHWkqZqw (replace dots with / to open link)

I’m only annoyed at the fact that 2 ***holes have claimed ownership of the footpaths and think they or their visitors are the only one who can park there. The whole point in my post is to try and get some different opinion. I agree with people saying there is enough space to drive through but the problem is that in effect it is someone else's decision to leave me enough space and even if I wasn’t able to go through once it is one time too many. This has been my argument all along and they know that and have been asked if one side of the kerb is occupied by a car there is plenty of space on the state to park and leave the other side free. When there were 2 parked and access was blocked it was always the other one’s fault when you tell them to move.
I’ve been told by solicitor I can take this to court and with all the evidence I have I’ll win the case and get an injunction as there are more than one covenant I can argue about regarding this and few other issues which I don’t want to get into details about. I couldn’t care less what they do with their property as long as it doesn’t affect my way of living and/or devaluing my property.
The difference for me is that I knew from day one we would live in this house for no more than 5 years at best, on the other hand for my neighbours it looks like its their forever home.
I have few trick up my sleeve I can pull to make it extremely difficult for them to use their drives efficiently but I’m not this type of person. However if it turns out we can’t sell quick enough for the right price I’m more than happy to rent it out and then I wouldn’t hesitate for one minute to take them to court and get this sorted once and for all.

Section62

Grumpy_chap said:

Section62 said:

Don't blame the planners... they can't do anything if national policy says they can't insist on developers providing 'x' parking spaces per dwelling.

I think we can blame the "Planners" - whether that is the local Planning Authority or guidelines / requirements that cascade from central Government, that is still "Planners" in the wider context.

Well you could, but it would be like blaming "teachers" for something you don't agree with in the national curriculum, or "bankers" for KYC.

Grumpy_chap said:

There is also a tendency for local Planning Authorities to take the national guidelines requirements and add extra over requirements. 
Our Local Authority has a policy that all new developments must be demonstrated to be designed for "car free" living and planning restriction (S4?) to prevent those properties obtaining resident parking permits.
Where, in all honesty, do the representatives of the Local Authority really think the cars will end up if not poorly parked?

If the LA is a densely developed area with very good public transport services then a policy like that might be sensible - in an area in which people can live without a car it makes sense to use space for more homes rather than parking spaces which may not be used.  The parking permit restriction makes sense to protect existing residents from having their current parking provision taken over by people moving into the new development.

The logic is that people moving into the area won't want a car - or conversely if they want to own a car they should look for housing elsewhere.

If, in a specific case, being car free is inappropriate and the LA refuses the application then the applicant can always appeal. They might stand a good chance of winning, since the formulation "must be" is likely to be overly restrictive when looking at the whole LA area.

Imposing a permit restriction should be hand-in-hand with having on-street parking restrictions, which would deal with the "poorly parked" issue.

And that is the fundamental issue the OP has here - the off-street parking provision isn't appropriate for the demand, but the LA hasn't supported that by requiring on-street parking controls.  Someone mentioned the OP could get double yellow lines - which is a solution, but comes at considerable cost (if highway) and is something most councils will only do in residential developments if someone else is paying for it.

ReadySteadyPop

Grumpy_chap said:

mjm3346 said:

https://ibb.co/dwbkRw0Q
https://ibb.co/ynxBHCBk
https://ibb.co/JwS8c0C2
https://ibb.co/1G3ysj2b
https://ibb.co/tT8LvC7h
https://ibb.co/rKZ4yY3n
https://ibb.co/YBHMx1xK

I am not entirely sure exactly which driveway is the OP's, but I cannot see that any of those photos show a driveway obstructed to the extent of blocking access / egress.

This will have to be declared as a dispute when the OP comes to sell.

I agree, it looks like people are making sure to leave the access unblocked actually. If the OP owns the gravel area they could fence it off with a keycode gate?

Section62

chug91 said:

Digram in attached link.
ibb.co…DHWkqZqw (replace dots with / to open link)

I’m only annoyed at the fact that 2 ***holes have claimed ownership of the footpaths and think they or their visitors are the only one who can park there. The whole point in my post is to try and get some different opinion. I agree with people saying there is enough space to drive through but the problem is that in effect it is someone else's decision to leave me enough space and even if I wasn’t able to go through once it is one time too many. This has been my argument all along and they know that and have been asked if one side of the kerb is occupied by a car there is plenty of space on the state to park and leave the other side free. When there were 2 parked and access was blocked it was always the other one’s fault when you tell them to move.

I know where you are coming from, but the flip side of that for the people parking there is it would be someone else's decision (yours) as to whether or not they can park where they want.

Parking issues like this are a nightmare for everyone, I've dealt with them professionally, and it is rare that there's a solution which keeps everyone happy.

chug91 said:

I’ve been told by solicitor I can take this to court and with all the evidence I have I’ll win the case and get an injunction as there are more than one covenant I can argue about regarding this and few other issues which I don’t want to get into details about. I couldn’t care less what they do with their property as long as it doesn’t affect my way of living and/or devaluing my property.

I'd exercise extreme caution with this solicitor.  Litigation is unpredictable and solicitors who know what they are talking about will talk in terms of chances of winning, rather than offering any form of certainties or guarantees.

If the road has been adopted then I'd suggest your chances of getting a covenant-related injunction are slim.  Public rights to use the highway are generally protected by the law, so you may only be able to get an injunction if you can show the parking to be linked to some form of harassment or similar.

user1977

Plus even if you get an injunction, then what? You'd still need to enforce it if it's breached. 

ReadySteadyPop

Zekko said:

I’m not sure what the problem is. From the photos provided you could fit a bus through that gap.

Yes, people are obviously parking up on the kerb to allow space for others to pass, real problems might occur if a wheelchair user needed access to the pavement, then you might find the council being more interested?

housebuyer143

I think the OPs plan to buy an old banger and leave it on the pavement isn't actually a bad idea. Just don't let them know it's yours and deny ownership and tax and insure it and they really can't do much about it. 

ReadySteadyPop

housebuyer143 said:

I think the OPs plan to buy an old banger and leave it on the pavement isn't actually a bad idea. Just don't let them know it's yours and deny ownership and tax and insure it and they really can't do much about it. 

Not worth the drama, just price the house to sell and get out of there.