Building over a Right of Way

Building over a Right of Way

Author
Discussion

mjb1

Original Poster:

2,552 posts

158 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Neighbours have submitted plans for a rear extension of their house, including building across the private foot path that runs immediately behind the houses. It's a bit messy how the ownership of the path has been split up over the years, but basically each house now owns the bit of path behind it, and the others have RoW over each bit. The path is only open to the highway at one end, and now the owner of the house at the other (dead) end wants to build across it. The title deeds clearly stipulate a RoW 'on foot' over it. One neighbour has given theirs up (when they sold this bit of path on). But my house still retains a RoW over the affected part of the path. Even though it's further down, beyond my house, and isn't a valid route to get anywhere, there's still technically a RoW there.

I have pointed this out to the neighbour that is planning to building over it, but they seemed to think it was a non issue, and they could build regardless. We're not on great terms, due to issues caused by their previous extensions. They seem to have distinct sense of high and mighty entitlement, and just do whatever they want, then act dumb when someone has the audacity to pull them up on something.

If I was being awkward, could the RoW be used to stop the building of the extension? Would it be a trivial matter for them to just remove a 'redundant' RoW from their title deeds, could that be even done without me agreeing to give it up? I was hoping to use it as bargaining leverage to possibly move or rescind their RoW over the part of the path behind my house (which is a valid access to their property, and I can't see them wanting to loose it). It's a short row involved, and myself and this neighbour are now the only remaining properties using/affected by the RoW on this path.

Does the planning office have any interest take any interest if preserving a RoW, or do they see it as completely irrelevant from a planning permission perspective? I'm guessing it's going to open a whole legal can of worms, and could escalate from a trivial matter quite easily.

Joe M

665 posts

244 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
It's at a dead end, it doesn't affect you, even if it is a row, it's it really worth the hassle?

blueg33

35,580 posts

223 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Can you and do you use the RoW at present? if so, they cant prevent you from using it by building on it. Is it of any use to you?

If they wont see sense it may need a solicitors letter and the threat of an injunction.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
If you're just wanting to do it out of spite, don't. Take the high ground (though in raising it with them already you have probably already cemented your reputation with them).

If you really want to use the path then object to planning/get a lawyer on it.

But be clear what you want to achieve. Bad relations can always get worse. Or better.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Can you and do you use the RoW at present? if so, they cant prevent you from using it by building on it. Is it of any use to you?

If they wont see sense it may need a solicitors letter and the threat of an injunction.
^This. You could point out to them that if they build over the RoW you're still entitled to use it. So they'd better provide some doors and keys for you to get into their extension.

Or they could simply buy out your RoW for (say) a few grand. Instead of just taking it.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
I don't understand how there's a path that doesn't go anywhere and you don't have access to from the rear of your house?

Did you ever have access to it?

GoneAnon

1,703 posts

151 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Is it a right of way for the public or just for the neighbouring landowners>

If the latter you could trade your right of access to their bit of the path in return for them giving up their access to your bit. Then fence it off for good.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
My guess is there used to be access the other end, or the RoW was not specifically worded for each house, just general.

Normally getting a RoW struck off as obsolete is quite hard, but if it is clearly unnecessary, it would be relatively straight forward.

So I'd say if the RoW is unnecessary - just a pointless walk up a blind alley - you're wasting your time OP.

bimsb6

8,034 posts

220 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
One of my mates employees had a similat scenario with someone blocking a row , it ended up in court with a no win no fee representing my mates employee , judgement went in employees favour costs awarded in total cost £150k . They did however make use of the row on an almost daily basis going back a number of years .

Rude-boy

22,227 posts

232 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
If it is going to affect your use and enjoyment then get a solicitor.

If it is no concern to you practically other than to further fuel the neighbour dispute you'd likely have to legally declare if you sell then your call but I'd leave it safe in the knowledge that when they sell its going to cost them at least a few hundred quid for an indemnity policy, which they may not get if they disclose your objection.

Personally I find life too short to fight pointless and self destructive battles, but that's me.

blueg33

35,580 posts

223 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
If it is going to affect your use and enjoyment then get a solicitor.

If it is no concern to you practically other than to further fuel the neighbour dispute you'd likely have to legally declare if you sell then your call but I'd leave it safe in the knowledge that when they sell its going to cost them at least a few hundred quid for an indemnity policy, which they may not get if they disclose your objection.

Personally I find life too short to fight pointless and self destructive battles, but that's me.
Agreed. No point in fighting for something you don't use, unless of course you want to try and get them to buy your right


Edited by blueg33 on Friday 20th January 09:53

mjb1

Original Poster:

2,552 posts

158 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
GoneAnon said:
Is it a right of way for the public or just for the neighbouring landowners>

If the latter you could trade your right of access to their bit of the path in return for them giving up their access to your bit. Then fence it off for good.
It's a private RoW, granted in the title deeds where the neighbouring properties are (or were) all specified.

Ideally, I'd be quite happy to trade my RoW for theirs - rescinding both of them. Worth a try I guess, but I can't seem them agreeing as their RoW over my bit of path is their only external access to their back garden/back door (they have access at the front no problem). My RoW over their path goes literally no where once it reaches the far side of their property. The other potential option is if they would trade for a redirection of the RoW over my garden, so it goes along the bottom end of my garden (where I already have a path running behind my garage) and into the bottom of their garden. That's a good distance from the houses, and out of view, so it would create more privacy and could be a good compromise. Again, not sure they'd want to go that route, it would create a little more inconvenience to them, being further to walk from the public highway to their back door.

A major part of my issue is that their planned extension involves moving their back door from being in line with mine, to being perpendicular to it (theirs will face down the path) and much closer together. So to me it means I will effectively loose some privacy, although I suspect the planners will see it as insignificant, since the existence of the RoW straight past my back door is already more so. Their proposed design really doesn't give any alternative new position for their back door, which could have created a bit more privacy. It'd be nice if the RoW has some leverage/bargaining power towards these matters, or if I could trade it for them not objecting to some of my future plans.

Neighbourly relations aren't great (only with them, everyone else gets on well), and I don't want to be involved in any more bun fights, especially if it none of the above are realistic outcomes, and if they could just get the existing RoW struck off as spurious.

The entire path was originally owned by the end property (where the open end of the path meets the public highway), and all the mid terraces had a RoW specified over it. Ownership of the path has been broken up piecemeal over the years, and each time a part was sold off, all the RoWs were transferred over each time. The title deeds to their section of path even have some other rights granted in it which only involve my property and another one of the neighbours, that make no sense at all in the context of the land that they pertain to.

austinsmirk

5,597 posts

122 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
I work in social housing (bare with me)

anyway I do vast amounts of building works, consider extensions/alterations to path/access routes and so on.

we own a lot of stock and this is a common problem- especially when I want to build an extension (Usually for disabled children) on a end or mid terraced type house (50's council stuff- not victorian terraces)

they all have a ROW across the back of the gardens to enable people to access land for taking bins out, getting stuff in/out of gardens etc.

even as the owner of all these properties AND all the surrounding grass/verges, pavements- (everything): I cannot start building extensions over such access routes.

Alternatively these laws have been very handy when I've need to get ramped access for wheelchair users into the back of a house because the front is unviable.

I can force an access route across not only our stock/gardens, but through owned (right to buy) properties.


So I've no plans/photos of yr neighbour's proposal- but on the face of it, no they cannot build on a ROW.

a quick chat with yr council planning chap will confirm though.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
I agree that falling out with people over something you don't use is pointless but it does sound like your neighbour is taking the piss. It would kind of grate with me if I thought they were acting like that.

Are you bravely standing up to a bully or just trying to get one over on someone that you don't like? hehe

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
I admit that I find some of the replies here puzzling.

WHy does it matter if the OP doesn't use the RoW? It's his. Whether he uses it or not doesn't mean he should give hand it over.

To take a similar example: if I owned 100 acres of woodland, and my neighbour decides he wants to build on the acre furthest away from me that I never ever visit, should I just roll over and let him?

Obviously ownership isn't the same as having a right of way, but nonetheless a right of way is a property right that can be bought, sold, bargained with or against, and which has a value. So why just hand it over?

blueg33

35,580 posts

223 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
I admit that I find some of the replies here puzzling.

WHy does it matter if the OP doesn't use the RoW? It's his. Whether he uses it or not doesn't mean he should give hand it over.

To take a similar example: if I owned 100 acres of woodland, and my neighbour decides he wants to build on the acre furthest away from me that I never ever visit, should I just roll over and let him?

Obviously ownership isn't the same as having a right of way, but nonetheless a right of way is a property right that can be bought, sold, bargained with or against, and which has a value. So why just hand it over?
I think the point being, is it a big enough battle to be worth it?

Personally I would be telling them that they can't do it and inviting them to sort it out, but I wouldn't lose sleep either.

Whatever happens, the Op needs to advise them formally NOW that they will be derogating his right of way as he has a duty to mitigate their losses and to let them keep going he would fail in that duty and be in a much weaker position

Piersman2

6,596 posts

198 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
I admit that I find some of the replies here puzzling.

WHy does it matter if the OP doesn't use the RoW? It's his. Whether he uses it or not doesn't mean he should give hand it over.

To take a similar example: if I owned 100 acres of woodland, and my neighbour decides he wants to build on the acre furthest away from me that I never ever visit, should I just roll over and let him?

Obviously ownership isn't the same as having a right of way, but nonetheless a right of way is a property right that can be bought, sold, bargained with or against, and which has a value. So why just hand it over?
This. I would at least be asking for agreement that their ROW over your land is either removed, or that they accept a re-route of their ROW in case you ever want to build a similar extension in the future.

JQ

5,691 posts

178 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
I admit that I find some of the replies here puzzling.

WHy does it matter if the OP doesn't use the RoW? It's his. Whether he uses it or not doesn't mean he should give hand it over.

To take a similar example: if I owned 100 acres of woodland, and my neighbour decides he wants to build on the acre furthest away from me that I never ever visit, should I just roll over and let him?

Obviously ownership isn't the same as having a right of way, but nonetheless a right of way is a property right that can be bought, sold, bargained with or against, and which has a value. So why just hand it over?
I've got to admit I'm also confused by some of the responses, the OP doesn't seem to be doing this out of spite, he's just highlighting that neighbourly relations are already strained so he's not bothered about upsetting them. What he wants is the ROW extinguished at the back of his house so he can, at some future date, do exactly what the neighbour is doing, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. If he doesn't resolve this now the opportunity to negotiate will be lost.

I can't provide any advice, but I'd certainly not let it lie as it does sound like you're in a very strong negotiating position.

TA14

12,722 posts

257 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
mjb1 said:
My RoW over their path goes literally no where once it reaches the far side of their property.
What do you mean? It must go somewhere: road, building, cliff, MOD missile testing etc.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
This could be a good opportunity to get rid of the RoW at the back of your property.

I really don't think it is unreasonable of you to expect him to sort the matter out properly.