Local road, sudden "Private Road No Access" signs appeared

[Swervin_Mervin]

Cyrus1971 said:

I don't think adopted or un-adopted is a part of the OP question.

It is however about land ownership status. Often such "roads" as you perceive them to be are actually long shared roads or more likely drives to multiple properties but with 2 entrances. So from the non-home owners perspective they are a link road to use. The individual property deeds of properties or fields off of that road or drive will have a common easement clause (right to use) and a common shared payment clause for maintenance (usually split among the properties) and a common rights clause (mineral, sewerage, services etc) for that road or drive.

So if you or others use it does not diminish the claim by the shared owners that it is indeed private. So it may not have a sign saying "private" for 50 years, come to be use by locals, and then have a sign lawfully erected when they choose to as a community of owners declare their property rights over it. Simply using someone else's land for your own purpose does not of itself entitle you to claim that it's status has changed or indeed that you have any rights over it. No more so that sun bathing in someone else's back garden entitles you to claim you have rights in their garden. So it remains theirs and not yours or indeed the councils either.

Adoption is an other entirely different and somewhat murky land law process.

At least that is what I think from land law lectures from 20 years ago !

Nothing murky about the adoption process at all. And as others have said, if a route is privately maintained but public highway (in this instance the route absolutely is imo, despite the assertions of the highway authority), then you can put all the signs up that you like - but it doesn't change the fact that as a public highway it has to remain open to the public.

[Swervin_Mervin]

ElectricSoup said:

Interesting, and swift, reply from the council (apologies for grammatical errors, they are not mine):

"this is indeed not public highway and though residents may of funded this them selves these are non enforceable, I will look to see if they have been installed on Reading Borough Council public highway .

If indeed this is the case they will be removed, however if they are within the boundary of Boundary Lane then there may be nothing we can do as they are responsible for this road.

I will double check they are within there rights to install such name plates and will get back to you as soon as I have more information. However there may still be access rights to this road, we are looking into this and will be in contact as soon as we have an answer."

And for the benefit of those defenders of private land, this is exactly why I'm asking the question. I have used the road for 10 years without any question that it wasn't a right of way, as it is has never been signed as private, nor restricted. I'm asking the question because I want to know if I am entitled to continue to use it, and if I'm not I shall desist.

Thanks also to the poster above with the point about easements for surrounding properties. My house is very close to this lane and was built on land which was part of the same private estate before it was developed. There may well be an easement in my property deeds entitling me to use the road in some capacity, I shall look in to that also. And if that's the case I'll write to residents on that road and offer to contribute financially to maintenance if and when required.

I think either the Council have incorrectly used the term public highway when they mean adopted highway, or they're plain incorrect. Everything I can see of that road suggests that it's public highway, just not adopted highway.

[ElectricPics]

Swervin_Mervin said:

ElectricPics said:

ElectricSoup said:

Just going back to this one from Mervin for a moment, the list of private roads shows there's an Ayrton Senna Road in Tilehurst. Well I never.

Also, this road is listed a private, with absolutely no signage or the like, and is used quite freely by traffic at al times, and has council street lighting and all that jazz:

https://goo.gl/maps/ngzXum3cErN1dceQ8

Is this an absolute can of worms?

I would say the inclusion of that road on a list of private roads is simply an error - it's obviously an adopted highway.

How so? You do find the occasional fairly high standard unadopted highway

Not with council logos on the street name sign, council drainage and street lighting. At least not up here in the frozen north.

[Swervin_Mervin]

ElectricPics said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

ElectricPics said:

ElectricSoup said:

Just going back to this one from Mervin for a moment, the list of private roads shows there's an Ayrton Senna Road in Tilehurst. Well I never.

Also, this road is listed a private, with absolutely no signage or the like, and is used quite freely by traffic at al times, and has council street lighting and all that jazz:

https://goo.gl/maps/ngzXum3cErN1dceQ8

Is this an absolute can of worms?

I would say the inclusion of that road on a list of private roads is simply an error - it's obviously an adopted highway.

How so? You do find the occasional fairly high standard unadopted highway

Not with council logos on the street name sign, council drainage and street lighting. At least not up here in the frozen north.

Could just be adopted as far as the junction bellmouth...

Although admittedly it looks unlikely.

[ElectricSoup]

Reply from the Council is in, finally. There is no established Public Right of Way over the lane, however "if there is a claim for access rights and it can be proved that uninterrupted use has been in place for more than 20 years, then the public is legally entitled to cross / use the road. It is not for the Council to prove access rights exist nor are we in a position to do so, however, if access is being denied the Council will investigate accordingly. If the general public has had uninterrupted access which has been in place for many years (usually more than 20), then highway access rights can be claimed, however, this does not then make the private lane a public highway maintainable at public expense."

I am certain that it is the case that uninterrupted use by the general public has been in place for over 20 years, I have known the road all that time and there has never been a block to use, nor any "Private No Access" signs.

I wonder how one would go about proving this?

I will also consult my own property title as I think I may have an easement over the Lane.

[Graveworm]

hidetheelephants said:

f it has been in common use as a right of way that can't be overturned by erecting a sign or putting up gates. The landowner needs to satisfy the council's RoW mandarin that it's not and that's pretty hard.

Yes 20 years of uninterrupted use can allow a claim to be made of right of way, it's not a right of way until the claim is upheld. Right of way doesn't a byway or a highway make so still may not be OK to cycle, ride or drive. They can also put a gate there so long as it can be opened enough for the right of way.

[Aretnap]

ElectricSoup said:

I am certain that it is the case that uninterrupted use by the general public has been in place for over 20 years, I have known the road all that time and there has never been a block to use, nor any "Private No Access" signs.

I wonder how one would go about proving this?

You can prove it simply by finding people who have used it over a sufficient period who are willing to give a statement to that effect. Look for local middle aged people who remember using it as a short cut to get to school and who were never challenged or confronted with keep out signs - that sort of thing.

The Ramblers does quite a lot of work in this area - for rights of way for pedestrians at least ( linky). Their local group might have some people who are good at it.

[S2r]

A public right of way and public highway are different even though they are both technically 'public highways'.

If you can show that it's been used for 20+ years then you have a case for saying that it has accrued highway rights but by erecting signs, the 'landowners' are making a statement under S31 of the highways act that it it not a public highway (IE it's private).

They will then be responsible for its maintenance, much like a private drive however if your deeds show you have rights across it then you can tell them to do one and carry on as before, if not then it's like driving up someones' drive.

And to clarify, you can own the land beneath a road but if it has highway rights across it then they take priority. As an example, on the vast majority of new developments, the developer will own the land beneath the road and the local authority will adopt the road and by 'adopt' I mean "be responsible for the maintenance of the road". Although some S38 agreements (S38 of the highways act, 'adoption by agreement' of you're interested) also have a clause about the council taking the freehold after 21 years for a nominal sum but that starts to get tedious if you're looking in to that mush detail !

And yes, I do have a dull job adopting new highway and stopping up other bits...

Edited by S2r on Thursday 28th November 22:00

[Swervin_Mervin]

S2r said:

A public right of way and public highway are different even though they are both technically 'public highways'.

If you can show that it's been used for 20+ years then you have a case for saying that it has accrued highway rights but by erecting signs, the 'landowners' are making a statement under S31 of the highways act that it it not a public highway (IE it's private).

They will then be responsible for its maintenance, much like a private drive however if your deeds show you have rights across it then you can tell them to do one and carry on as before, if not then it's like driving up someones' drive.

And to clarify, you can own the land beneath a road but if it has highway rights across it then they take priority. As an example, on the vast majority of new developments, the developer will own the land beneath the road and the local authority will adopt the road and by 'adopt' I mean "be responsible for the maintenance of the road". Although some S38 agreements (S38 of the highways act, 'adoption by agreement' of you're interested) also have a clause about the council taking the freehold after 21 years for a nominal sum but that starts to get tedious if you're looking in to that mush detail !

And yes, I do have a dull job adopting new highway and stopping up other bits...

Edited by S2r on Thursday 28th November 22:00

And yet in your 2nd paragraph you're conflating public highway with adopted highway. Public highway does not have to be authority maintained.

I still maintain that the LHA are wrong on this. OP - how old is the road?

[S2r]

Swervin_Mervin said:

And yet in your 2nd paragraph you're conflating public highway with adopted highway. Public highway does not have to be authority maintained.

I still maintain that the LHA are wrong on this. OP - how old is the road?

Not sure where I'm mixing and matching anything., if it's been used for 20+ years by the public then it's accrued highway rights, if not then it hasn't... a public highway is where the public have rights to cross and recross without restriction, it doesn't matter if the council have adopted it

[Swervin_Mervin]

Actually I've just re-read what you said and hold my hands up - i misinterpreted what you said so fair enough.

[ElectricSoup]

Swervin_Mervin said:

I still maintain that the LHA are wrong on this. OP - how old is the road?

It was part of an ancient Estate - there's a massive stately home a few miles away (clue: The Eagle Has Landed) which is still the centre of a large private estate of farm land. This road was a lane in a section of that estate which was sold off for development in what must have been the latter half of the 19th Century. There are large Victorian houses in the neighbourhood, and those properties (including mine, which was built on the land of a large Victorian "Hall" subsequently demolished), have several rights and easements over local facilities such as lanes and riverside landing spots. Residents of the developed area have been using the lane for all this time, well over 100 years, and there have never been any "private" signs. There remain several unadopted roads in the neighbourhood, but most have been adopted by now.

[Sebastian Tombs]

Swervin_Mervin said:

ElectricSoup said:

Interesting, and swift, reply from the council (apologies for grammatical errors, they are not mine):

"this is indeed not public highway and though residents may of funded this them selves these are non enforceable, I will look to see if they have been installed on Reading Borough Council public highway .

If indeed this is the case they will be removed, however if they are within the boundary of Boundary Lane then there may be nothing we can do as they are responsible for this road.

I will double check they are within there rights to install such name plates and will get back to you as soon as I have more information. However there may still be access rights to this road, we are looking into this and will be in contact as soon as we have an answer."

I think either the Council have incorrectly used the term public highway when they mean adopted highway, or they're plain incorrect. Everything I can see of that road suggests that it's public highway, just not adopted highway.

Well they have incorrectly used "may of", when they mean "may have", "them selves" when they mean "themselves" and "there" when they mean "their", so it's possible.

I own the mews road that my house is on, and there are easements allowing access over it for other the other house in the mews and the tenants/owners of some garages which form the other side. In fact I bought it to transfer some land and rights to my house title which were somehow absent. We also have rights of way over a private driveway with 2 different owners along its length to get to our road. We also apparently own the gates to the mews but due to an oversight in the 1980s it's not on our land. On the other side we have a pedestrian gate which opens onto another private road, which along its length has at least 3 different owners. Despite the gate having opened onto this road for 150 years there is no legally defined right or easement over it, so we have an indemnity policy in case someone starts moaning about it. Quite what the policy will practically do I have no idea, but our lawyer thought we'd need it, and it was cheap. All this complication has arisen as one huge piece of land was subdivided and sold off piece by piece over the last 130 years or so. I expect it's more common than you'd think.

Edited by Sebastian Tombs on Friday 29th November 08:58

[poo at Paul's]

"uninterrupted use" ? To prove that surely you have to get statements from people to say they have used it everyday, all day, for 20 years? Not one day off, not one holiday, day sick, and used it constantly, ie drove through it, turned round, drove back etc?
Otherwise, how can you prove it's use has been "uninterrupted" to all and sundry.
I bet whoever put that sign up will have some evidence to show it was blocked, access restricted, or incumbered I some way for a period before that sign was up, hence overcoming the 20 year claim subsequently being made?

Interesting topic. OP, from a practical perspective, how far would you have to travel detour if you cannot go through there?

[A500leroy]

if xr can sit in the middle of city streets without being moved by the police then i dont think much will happen if you just carry on using it.

[Aretnap]

poo at Paul's said:

"uninterrupted use" ? To prove that surely you have to get statements from people to say they have used it everyday, all day, for 20 years? Not one day off, not one holiday, day sick, and used it constantly, ie drove through it, turned round, drove back etc?
Otherwise, how can you prove it's use has been "uninterrupted" to all and sundry.

I doubt anything so dramatic is required. It would be necessary to prove that the public (not necessarily the same individual) have used it for 20 years, and that that use hasn't been interrupted by a period during which it has been blocked, or the public have been turfed off when they tried to use it etc. Evidence of regular use over a 20 year period, coupled with no evidence of any enforced prohibition in that time, would probably be enough, on the balance of probabilities at least.

poo at Paul's said:

I bet whoever put that sign up will have some evidence to show it was blocked, access restricted, or incumbered I some way for a period before that sign was up, hence overcoming the 20 year claim subsequently being made?

They might. But I wouldn't bet on it. They might just as easily have put the sign up in the hope that nobody will challenge it, or without giving much thought to the question of whether it could be claimed as a right of way.

[Aretnap]

poo at Paul's said:

"uninterrupted use" ? To prove that surely you have to get statements from people to say they have used it everyday, all day, for 20 years? Not one day off, not one holiday, day sick, and used it constantly, ie drove through it, turned round, drove back etc?
Otherwise, how can you prove it's use has been "uninterrupted" to all and sundry.

I doubt anything so dramatic is required. It would be necessary to prove that the public (not necessarily the same individual) have used it for 20 years, and that that use hasn't been interrupted by a period during which it has been blocked, or the public have been turfed off when they tried to use it etc. Evidence of regular use over a 20 year period, coupled with no evidence of any enforced prohibition in that time, would probably be enough, on the balance of probabilities at least.

poo at Paul's said:

I bet whoever put that sign up will have some evidence to show it was blocked, access restricted, or incumbered I some way for a period before that sign was up, hence overcoming the 20 year claim subsequently being made?

They might. But I wouldn't bet on it. They might just as easily have put the sign up in the hope that nobody will challenge it, or without giving much thought to the question of whether it could be claimed as a right of way.

[Kuji]

It’s a pretty fair bet to expect the home owners to have looked into the options before putting up the signs. This is 2019 after all, and such research is mostly digital.

I would go so far as to say it’s wishful thinking to consider otherwise.

[Heidfirst]

Oh, I don't know. Here in Scotland lots of estates put up unlawful signs e.g. http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2019/01/21/why-peo...

[ElectricSoup]

I think what they have done in erecting the sign is lawful as it stands, until such time as a Public Right of Way is claimed and registered. I'm wondering whether I can be bothered with that - I use the lane frequently as a scenic short cut on foot or on my bike, it's not essential but it is a bit of detour without using it. I'm going to check my own property deeds for an easement first, when I get around to it. I think they're stored at my solicitor's though. If I have the easement which I suspect I do have, then I'll not bother. If I don't, then I might.