Building over a Right of Way

[anonymous-user]

TA14 said:

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.

AIUI it is a path that runs along the rear of a terrace of houses. At one end of the path is access to a road and at the other is a dead end.

Each house only *needs* a RoW over the part of the path between that house and the highway. However, as things have been set up, each house has a RoW over the entirety of the path all the way to the dead end.

The OP lives second furthest from the road, and second closest to the dead end. The neighbour in question lives furthest from the road and closest to the dead end. The neighbour wants to grab the path adjacent to his house, in effect moving the location of the dead end one house closer to the road.

[Busa mav]

Have a look at the application form they submitted to the planners, at the very end there is a question asking about ownership of the entire site.

If you have a right of way over this land, they should have served a notice on you, if they haven't, contact the council and let them know that the forms are incorrect and they will stop the application there and then.

[TA14]

Busa mav said:

Have a look at the application form they submitted to the planners, at the very end there is a question asking about ownership of the entire site.

If you have a right of way over this land, they should have served a notice on you, if they haven't, contact the council and let them know that the forms are incorrect and they will stop the application there and then.

Good post.

[TA14]

Greg66 said:

TA14 said:

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.

AIUI it is a path that runs along the rear of a terrace of houses. At one end of the path is access to a road and at the other is a dead end.

Each house only *needs* a RoW over the part of the path between that house and the highway. However, as things have been set up, each house has a RoW over the entirety of the path all the way to the dead end.

The OP lives second furthest from the road, and second closest to the dead end. The neighbour in question lives furthest from the road and closest to the dead end. The neighbour wants to grab the path adjacent to his house, in effect moving the location of the dead end one house closer to the road.

Yes, all of that is clear but what is the dead end? Although it may be of no use now it maybe useful in the future if that area of land use is changed so that it's no longer a dead end. So what does the OP mean is causing him to call it a dead end of no use now or at any time in the future?

[mjb1]

blueg33 said:

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

When they said that they were intending to extend there, I did tell them that there was still a RoW and they couldn't just build on it. Their response was that they didn't see any issue. All went quiet for a couple of months, then I received the planning notice about it. Haven't seen or spoken to them since, but given the way the previous discussion went, there's little point me just having another friendly chat with them. Next step is something formal and in writing, probably involving a solicitor.

TA14 said:

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.

It goes into the wall of the neighbour's house the other side (another extension built a very long time ago, which also possibly infringed the path/RoW). Wall built to the boundary and all his access is from the other side now.

Busa mav said:

Have a look at the application form they submitted to the planners, at the very end there is a question asking about ownership of the entire site.

If you have a right of way over this land, they should have served a notice on you, if they haven't, contact the council and let them know that the forms are incorrect and they will stop the application there and then.

There's a a question specifically about public RoW in the middle of the application, but this isn't public, only private. At the end there's the certification section, where they state that nobody except the applicant is the freehold owner, don't think section is anything to do with RoWs though?

Their design/access statement mentions that the neighbour beyond them has relinquished their RoW over the path (who they bought it from, so entirely possible, although it's in the charges section of the title deeds but not detailed, just says "Note: copy filed"). They conveniently don't mention in the application that there other RoWs still in place. I'll try and speak to the planning officer about it, but suspect they'll say it's not a planning matter?

Reality is, I bought the house knowing that there was a shared pedestrian access behind it, and neither of us could extend rearwards. I was fine with that, had no interest in extending mine, and comforted to know that the neighbours wouldn't be able to build something overbearing. Now they're just riding roughshod over it.

Another concern is the disruption it'll cause. They've been 'renovating' (practically rebuilt) the property over the last 3 years. It's not their main home, so the work has been done piecemeal over that time - random disruptions, a flurry of work, then quiet again). For at least a year it was like living next to a building site with sporadically cement mixers, grinders, kango hammers on the party wall going on (they literally broke though it at one point). Just when I thought the disturbance was all over, here comes round 2!

Part of the work involves excavating a path that's within two feet of the boundary. The gardens raise away from the houses very steeply, so at one point their new path will be about 8 feet lower than ground level on my side. There is a retaining wall on the boundary, but I'm concerned that they are going to undermine it. Not sure if this qualifies as a party wall matter or not?

[blueg33]

Op

If you don't want the build to go ahead you need to look at doing the following.

You need to object to the planning and state that third parties with a beneficial interest in the land have not been advised under the procedure set out in the Act and as such the application is invalid and the Council is exposed to a Judicial Review

You should also point out that if planning is granted then the consent cannot be legally implemented. Whilst not a true planning consideration the Authority is supposed to consider whether it can be implemented as non implementable consents are pointless

You must get a solicitor to write to them stating that they will be derogating your RoW and that an injunction could be obtained to prevent them from proceeding.

Start using the RoW on a daily basis

[TA14]

blueg33 said:

Op ... Start using the RoW on a daily basis

I suppose that if you thought that birds were nesting in your gutter then the ROW might give you a good vantage point.

[blueg33]

TA14 said:

I suppose that if you thought that birds were nesting in your gutter then the ROW might give you a good vantage point.

And if he wants to keep an eye on the condition of flashings, chimney, or just to get some exercise

[anonymous-user]

Remember: the OP doesn't need an excuse. He has a right of way to pass and repass on foot. It's not a right to enter onto the land for a specific purpose.

He can walk round and round in circles all day long as if he has gone bonkers if he wants to! The answer to the question "why are you on this land?" is "I don't need a reason, wker!", and then the headbutting and throwing of cans of Red Bull can commence in earnest.

[Rude-boy]

So the RoW isn't at the end of the garden, but bisects the gardens?

If that is the case, and you are happy for the RoW to be moved to the rear then you have a much more understandable, mutually beneficial, legal point to put to them.

Following on from your further posting since last night I strongly suggest you go see a decent solicitor next week to discuss the situation and what you legal, as well as practical, options are.



For that chap that was concerned as to why some (inc me last night when i was under the impression that the RoW was at the end of the garden) were suggesting that the OP might like to consider letting it go there is good reason for this. There is the law and what legal rights you have and then there is the reality of daily life and living. if this were an at the end of the gardens, fenced off RoW that was of no use to the OP in any way it would likely be time, money and effort expended for little return other than pissing others off. In the instance of the 1,000 acres suggested the loss of value to the land owner would be in the thousands, or even hundreds of thousands in terms of the value of the land lost. What is the financial value of a RoW you never use? A few £k at the very most. It is a question of practicalities as well as rights.