Adjusting right of way

[dickymint]

There is a solution - keep the RoW the same and let the neighbours walk through the extension - everybody happy and no legal expenses

Joking aside I wouldn't bother with the planning application unless your neighbours can agree with the RoW but good luck with that.

[bennno]

blueg33 said:

If I was a neighbour, I don't think I would agree to the change, especially if I lived in No32.

If I was at 32 then I'd prefer to move the right of way away from the immediate back of the house to straight across further down the garden, but id ask 34 to cover both new gates and a path and im not sure whether 28 would agree to this.

[blueg33]

bennno said:

blueg33 said:

If I was a neighbour, I don't think I would agree to the change, especially if I lived in No32.

If I was at 32 then I'd prefer to move the right of way away from the immediate back of the house to straight across further down the garden, but id ask 34 to cover both new gates and a path and im not sure whether 28 would agree to this.

Definately the best solution for No 32, he would effectively shorten the garden but have less disruption from people coming through.

[blueg33]

dickymint said:

There is a solution - keep the RoW the same and let the neighbours walk through the extension - everybody happy and no legal expenses

many years ago a well known housebuilder built over a RoW and had to leave the front and back doors open for people to walk through.

[QuickQuack]

tommobot said:

Ok, I've updated this somewhat with the points noted above, and yes I did completely balls up on the numbering.

A small driveway separates 36 and 34 which leads to parking for those two properties, the land that we own is within green, and the new extension is within our ownership.

28 and 32 have an easement accross our land for use, which realistically is once a year if that really.

We get on well with 28 and they would have no issue with moving the ROW.

32 is owned by a landlord, presumably mortage free and really has no interest in the proeprty whatsoever, and even said when the current tennants leave they may sell (potentially to us, as we have asked previously)

I would propose to adjust the ROW, as shown on the plans as trees are due to be removed in this area anyway so to me, it seems like a pretty reasonable solution.

Drumroll said:

Your idea might suite you but it certainly doesn't your other 2 neighbours. Number 32 garden basically will become a foot path for number 28.

Just because someone doesn't see things the way you do, doesn't make them a knob.

Whilst I somewhat agree, does it fundementally ruin their life or affect them realistically any further than it does already? - no. So, get a grip and don't have a problem with it would be my view, and would be the view I would have if it was vice versa. To be difficult for the sake of being difficult is just.. Well, anyway - I'd potentially get it I they had an interest or owned and lived in the property but anway...

They had a formal chance to complain, during the planning process (with multiple applications submitted) and obviously had no point or objection to raise.

I would also agree with the points raised that I potentially should have contacted the neighbours to discuss this prior to planning, but planning has been such a faff to get through (and it still may not) that why rock the boat with something that cannot be done.

JQ said:

Another issue you will have to overcome - there will not be a RoW over 32's land giving access to the gate you intend to install for the occupier of 28. As such you will also need to vary the RoW between 32 and 28.

Fair point, and noted.

While the current landlord and tenant may not mind, what you are utterly failing to see is anything that doesn't fit in with your wishes and world view.

As has been said before, the RoW between 32 and 30/28 needs to be varied but you have absolutely no right to do or demand that. It's not your land. The current route restricts the passage to a narrow corridor at the bottom of the garden, right by the building where there won't be any flower beds, lawn or anything, now or in the future. Your proposed route puts the RoW slap bang in the middle of the garden, right where somebody might want to have a nice lawn, a flower bed, a water feature, seating, whatever they wish. Having a RoW not only path makes that impossible for the owner occupier, it significantly reduces the value of the garden and the house come sale time. Any landlord worth their salt will be aware of the potential sale value of their portfolio and will not agree to anything which reduces the value of their property, why on earth should they? In fact, one of my rental properties has a near identical RoW to number 32, and if the equivalent of number 34 wanted to change the pathway to what you're proposing the answer would be no, because it completely ruins the useability of the garden space. When you have guests in the garden and entertaining friends, if people with a RoW need to pass through, it's better if they're confined to the edges of the garden rather trampling through the middle of all your guests.

Sometimes I find it hard to believe how selfish some people are in demanding others comply with their demands when they have no right or reason to, or as in this case, when complying with the request would be to their detriment in every possible way. There's no upside for this for No 32.

[QuickQuack]

blueg33 said:

bennno said:

blueg33 said:

If I was a neighbour, I don't think I would agree to the change, especially if I lived in No32.

If I was at 32 then I'd prefer to move the right of way away from the immediate back of the house to straight across further down the garden, but id ask 34 to cover both new gates and a path and im not sure whether 28 would agree to this.

Definately the best solution for No 32, he would effectively shorten the garden but have less disruption from people coming through.

Agreed that this would be the best solution for 32, but 28 might not agree as they'd have to walk all the down the garden then back up again.

[tommobot]

So to given an idea of context see photo below, perhaps the sketch above didn't quite put accross the minor (imo ofcourse ) inconvience that it would present to the neigbour. Behind the gate, and pretty much adjacanent to the soil pipe on the next property along is the door into 30

The shaded red area shows where the rear extension would be going, and the green shaded area shows the approx positon of the new access into no 32.

Obviously this may move a touch to the left, there is the outbuilding behind the hedgrerow.

ozzuk said:

Planning doesn't consider access so any objections raised on that basis likely wouldn't impact it. To stop you building the LL just has to say you must maintain the access then you are pretty much dead in the water. - Maybe offer some landscaping as part of the works - someone will need to put a path where the tree was. Is it all concrete prior to that point? i.e. nothing else impacted by your diagonal path proposal?

Well, I mean I am maintaing the access aren't I?

1 concrete slab, maybe 2 would sort out the access on the neighbours side, it is predominantly concrete / mud.

[QuickQuack]

blueg33 said:

dickymint said:

There is a solution - keep the RoW the same and let the neighbours walk through the extension - everybody happy and no legal expenses

many years ago a well known housebuilder built over a RoW and had to leave the front and back doors open for people to walk through.

[QuickQuack]

tommobot said:

Well, I mean I am maintaing the access aren't I?

It's not just about access. It's also about the effect of the new route on the consequent amenity and restrictions to the next property, both now and in the future. In my view, it's a highly detrimental effect.

[JQ]

tommobot said:

We get on well with 28 and they would have no issue with moving the ROW.

Getting on well with someone doesn't mean you'll automatically give them access rights over half your garden. You might be in for a shock.

tommobot said:

Whilst I somewhat agree, does it fundementally ruin their life or affect them realistically any further than it does already? - no. So, get a grip and don't have a problem with it would be my view, and would be the view I would have if it was vice versa. To be difficult for the sake of being difficult is just.. Well, anyway - I'd potentially get it I they had an interest or owned and lived in the property but anway...

You do understand doing things like this can have an adverse impact on the value of a property.

tommobot said:

They had a formal chance to complain, during the planning process (with multiple applications submitted) and obviously had no point or objection to raise.

Planning has absolutely nothing to do with the RoW.

tommobot said:

I would also agree with the points raised that I potentially should have contacted the neighbours to discuss this prior to planning, but planning has been such a faff to get through (and it still may not) that why rock the boat with something that cannot be done.

Because your neighbours finding out you are planning an extension over their right of way via a letter from the Local Planning Authority will likely have got their backs up. As with almost all aspects of life it's always easier to get people onside before dropping bombshells.

If I owned No. 32 I wouldn't let you move the RoW. Just creates a major headache when they come to sell and adversely impacts anything they may wish to do to their garden in the future.

I find it utterly bizarre you've gone to the time, effort and expense of going for planning for an extension you cannot legally build, having not spoken to the neighbours who's consent you need in advance.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Looking at that photo No 32 already has an extension on their property, why not match that and then the ROW can stay as it is ?

[paulrockliffe]

blueg33 said:

bennno said:

blueg33 said:

If I was a neighbour, I don't think I would agree to the change, especially if I lived in No32.

If I was at 32 then I'd prefer to move the right of way away from the immediate back of the house to straight across further down the garden, but id ask 34 to cover both new gates and a path and im not sure whether 28 would agree to this.

Definately the best solution for No 32, he would effectively shorten the garden but have less disruption from people coming through.

If I lived in 32 I think I would consider that the best solution would be for the OP to buy the last metre of my garden to facilitate 30's access and to fence it off. I'd be happy to then use that access too, or the access the OP is proposing. But I'd want a solid price for the land and for all the deeds to be sorted and all my costs covered as well.

It's not just a question of whether the proposal is acceptable, because if I'm in 32 then the current arrangements are not ideal and this is an opportunity for them to be put on a better footing for me and either the OP does what I want or the extension can't happen.

I also wouldn't even consider this position as me being awkward or difficult, if you want to change my easement, it needs to be changed to something that works for me rather than just what suits you best.

[Bill]

They effectively have a ransom strip for your extension so why would they object to your planning application??

[wildoliver]

Having read the latest posts OP just a bit of free advice, don't spend a penny more on this till you have the row sorted. By the sounds of it the middle house is going to be hard work. if they don't agree you can't do a thing. Your case is far more contentious than ours, I could actually see the point of the middle house saying no, I possibly would in the same situation. Again. Nothing you can do if they dig their heels in.

I'll never buy a house with any rights of access issues/shared drives/conservation area/listed etc. Ever again, it's just all a licence to make your life harder than it needs to be.

[tommobot]

JQ said:

I find it utterly bizarre you've gone to the time, effort and expense of going for planning for an extension you cannot legally build, having not spoken to the neighbours who's consent you need in advance.

As noted above, theres absolutely no guarantee that I any verbal acceptance will be carreid on formally on paper.

Whats the point of going to all the hastle, argument etc... if they agree and I can't even get planning, which again has proven to be highly contentious.

Now I'm in a position where I can discuss, offer positive solutions (£££) and may actually get an extension (or still may not) rather than just day dreaming about it because my neighbours landlord is (in my opinion) a grump on first approach.

Whilst I appreciate all the advice given in the thread, gee wizz I'm glad I don't live next to you lot..

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Do you have a satellite view of the gardens and ROW ?

This may help us see better your view.

[JQ]

tommobot said:

JQ said:

I find it utterly bizarre you've gone to the time, effort and expense of going for planning for an extension you cannot legally build, having not spoken to the neighbours who's consent you need in advance.

As noted above, theres absolutely no guarantee that I any verbal acceptance will be carreid on formally on paper.

Whats the point of going to all the hastle, argument etc... if they agree and I can't even get planning, which again has proven to be highly contentious.

Now I'm in a position where I can discuss, offer positive solutions (£££) and may actually get an extension (or still may not) rather than just day dreaming about it because my neighbours landlord is (in my opinion) a grump on first approach.

Whilst I appreciate all the advice given in the thread, gee wizz I'm glad I don't live next to you lot..

Don't worry, I'm glad I don't live next to you.

[tommobot]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

Do you have a satellite view of the gardens and ROW ?

This may help us see better your view.

[url]

|https://thumbsnap.com/BQhaUcQC[/url]

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Well the gardens are a little bigger than I imagined from your diagram.

Moving the ROW a few metres further up definitely won’t be cutting his lawn in half.

However all you can do is try negotiating something that is beneficial to all parties, which given the space to work with may be possible but may incur costs to appease the LL.

[Mr_J]

Drumroll said:

Your proposal would cut next doors garden in two. I would be amazed if it was the other way round you would just say crack on.

This in spades. There's no way I'd accept it.