Covenant to not obstruct driveway

[PinkES]

I have an access way to the rear of the property. The land is owned by the neighbour at the rear (North of the access way) who granted a covenant in 1965 to provide me vehicular access and ensure it is not obstructed. The deed plan says at least 8'6" wide. My direct neighbour, a pub, on the South of the access way, has trees on their rear boundary which have grown very large, pushing the boundary and also their fence such that it is no longer 8'6" wide. They are not covenanted to not obstruct it (the owner of the pub back in 1965 was the grantee of the covenant, he also owned my property and then sold mine off with the benefit of the covenant/access way). As far as I can tell, the pub owner is under no obligation to reinstate the width of the accessway. But their rear boundary no longer fits the shape/line drawn on the plan such that I can no longer fit a car down there without extreme care. I'm not sure how to resolve it beyond asking the pub owner nicely to cut his trees down (I can imagine the answer) or asking the landowner who is bound by the covenant (large freeholder landowner of an estate of maisonnettes and I don't even know how to contact him) to ask the pub owner to do the same. And as this has been the case for a number of years now, can they legitimately refuse to do so, under adverse possession or something like that? Does anyone here have some legal experience to advise on this?

How narrow is it now ?

For UK reader the stated width is 2.6 meters and a car would be 1.7 m typically

It seems to be you have left it a long time

Have you asked a solicitor?
I've be checking that the tree does have a TPO on it. My neighbour has added them to many of the trees down our road- only 1 is actually on her property!

Who actually granted the covenant? You initially say it was granted by the owner of the land north of your boundary, then you say it was the owner of the pub (south of your boundary) who sold it in 1965.
My limited knowledge of covenants says that the successor in title to whoever granted the covenant is responsible for enforcing it so it really does depend on who granted it in the first place.
There is an online forum somewhere on garden law who I believe are very helpful.

Not only who granted it and so who takes the benefit/burden in succession but also which properties took subject to it.

Thanks for the replies everyone. There are no TPOs on that boundary. To clarify, the pub (and then owner of my house) on the South of the accessway was the grantee and the freeholder of the land on the North of the accessway was the grantor, therefore it is the freeholder of the land on the North that is required to not allow the land to be obstructed. The driveway is so narrow in places that I have about 2cm spare on either side. And made harder by a 90degree bend at the end of the line of maisonettes. So in practical terms it is now obstructed. But it is obstructed by the pub trees and fence which have moved over time, rather than by the maisonettes. However, it is the freeholder of the maisonettes who must not allow it to be obstructed. Yes, this has happened over a long period of time. But does that mean that the covenant is not enforceable? I would like it to be resolved amicably, I am willing to contribute to costs if necessary although there is no requirement set out in the deeds requiring me to do so. But I'd like to know the legal positions before I approach the pub owner and potentially the freeholder of the maisonettes. If I have to try and legally enforce the covenant I imagine it will be terribly drawn out, costly and difficult to enforce given that to comply with covenant the landowner will need to make changes to trees and boundaries of a 3rd party

The pub owner doesn’t have a right to obstruct the access way though do they? Their bushes shouldn’t be overhanging. If the covenant says the other property shouldn’t allow the access way to be obstructed then it might follow that they should take positive steps in the event it’s obstructed by someone else.

Have you actually approached the pub? Most reasonable people would apologise and remove the obstruction, irrespective of covenants.

Sounds odd - it’s the local planning dept that makes the decision on and adds TPO’s. Are the trees of significance?

Yes, but you can request one and if it's upheld it happens.

The trees are not protected by a TPO. There are TPOs elsewhere in the pub garden, 11 trees are protected, but not the ones on the boundary

This is my feeling on the matter too. I haven't approached the pub owner yet although I intend to as the first step. I'm just very aware that most people don't react well to being told that their boundary is in the wrong place and that there's probably £5000 of work to put right with no actual benefit to them. And the management company is known to be very tight on spending so they're unlikely to just do it without question. So I wanted to know if they had any legitimate grounds for refusing to address it, i.e. adverse possession

I have no idea- just going by what my neighbour has told me SHE has done? Apparently, she has very close friends in the Parish council, so I suspect that might have helped- if it is indeed true?

Surely the issue with the pub and the tree is that they have let their fence an tree encroach on the adjoining land which does not belong to them.

So they need to sort that out!

The tree is on your access / ROW land - I would just cut the bit that encroaches.
Maybe.

Yes that's what I want, but doing so will involve chopping down the whole trees, it's the enormous size of the trunks which is causing the problem. So I'm anticipating resistance. Do you know if adverse possession takes precedence over the covenant, or vice versa? That's the only thing that I can think means they can stop it, apart from being very awkward and just refusing to do it.

A right of way is an estate in land.

The tree is blocking your route. That constitutes a trespass.

There are two ways you can approach this:

1. Point out to the pub that their tree is encroaching on your right of way and ask them to take it down, or at least remove the encroaching part of the tree.
2. Remove the encroachment yourself. Every beneficiary of a right of way is entitle to keep the route clear and resurface it to make it fit for purpose.

I suggest you try 1 first and if that doesn't work take some formal legal advice (i.e not here - pay for it) before trying 2.