Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

Right of way access dispute

28 replies

maggie45 · 05/02/2022 20:13

Please bear with me on background
We live in a row of 10 houses, which have a shared right of way path at the bottom of each garden. We all own the land adjacent to our gardens respectively, but it is a shared right of way for vehicle access to garages within property boundaries.
The end of the row of properties ends at a school fence.

The end terrance house (next door to ours) have built a brick garage at the back of their garden, over their section of the shared right of way path. They have, however, put a door in the side of their garage that looks out into the path for "access".
They also don't have planning permission for the garage, and it is bigger than is allowed.

They've built right up to the boundary of our property, technically blocking us from being able to drive through and reverse back into our property, which we have the right to.

Are we right in thinking they've forgone their right to access the path? Could we now technically do the same? We've spoken to them about the fact we would like to do the same in terms of building a timber shed at the bottom and cover our section of the path, but they've said they're not happy because it stops them being able to access their garage from the path. (they still have access via their garden and the door in the path is too small for them to fit a car through)

It's supposed to be for vehicle access only, and the door they've left on their garage is too narrow for them to get a car into the garage. I'm also under the impression they're not allowed to stop on the path at the bottom of our garden to unload into their garage, which they seem to think they can.

I hope this has all made sense. Has anyone experienced something similar?

OP posts:
MrMrsJones · 05/02/2022 20:19

Can you do a diagram so we can understand a bit more

CecilyTheWake · 05/02/2022 20:23

@MrMrsJones

Can you do a diagram so we can understand a bit more
It’s pretty clear in the OP. These constant demands for diagrams are getting really tedious.
FrippEnos · 05/02/2022 20:34

CecilyTheWake

There are several bits of the OP that could be clarified with a diagram.

The reference to a path to the door in the garage but the neighbours appear to park there and unload their car.

That the OP cannot "drive through and reverse back into our property, which they "have the right to"

also
"It's supposed to be for vehicle access only, and the door they've left on their garage is too narrow for them to get a car into the garage."

Is this a reference to the access "path" or the a poorly built garage?

FrippEnos · 05/02/2022 20:34

maggie45

If its causing you problems and is against build regulations, report it and have it removed.

maggie45 · 05/02/2022 20:37

The orange highlights the path, the grey shows where they've build their garage and the green dot shows where they've put their door.
I hope this helps and clarifies

Right of way access dispute
OP posts:
Mykittensmittens · 05/02/2022 20:41

I get it.

The Most awkward part of the equation is the non-ability for turning space, meaning you’d now have to reverse back along the entire run to get out. Whereas before you could have pulled slightly beyond your boundary and done a 3 point turn. Right?

FrippEnos · 05/02/2022 20:44

Is there supposed to be access along the school fence as well?

maggie45 · 05/02/2022 20:45

Yes that's right @Mykittensmittens

OP posts:
maggie45 · 05/02/2022 20:46

No @FrippEnosthey don't need to give access on the school side

OP posts:
CecilyTheWake · 05/02/2022 20:48

It was already clear, @maggie45 but thanks. We had a similar scenario with a neighbour putting up an outbuilding which looked like it was going to block access along a rear path.

I think you need to speak to your council’s planning team because it sounds like they’ve blocked access to a shared ROW.

Sideswiped · 05/02/2022 20:53

Get on to the planning section if your local council ASAP.
It's an inconvenience to you, but could also be a negative point if you decide to sell your home.
I don't think choosing to do the same is wise.

Adeleskirts · 05/02/2022 20:55

I also think this was very clear op. I find the requests for diagrams quite odd on here.

I think they’ve built on an area they are not permitted to, so they have a set of balls on them trying to stop you.

The question is what do you want to do about it? Report them and you can’t have your shed, build it and they will be Pissed but can’t report you.as they will be in the shit if they do.

GiantKitten · 05/02/2022 20:57

I can see why they thought it was ok (leaving aside planning permission Hmm) because they’re right at the end, and in theory it doesn’t take anybody else’s ROW.
But because they’ve done that, you are now effectively in the same position they were, so of course you can do the same!
They’ll just have to put their door somewhere else. Tough.

LIZS · 05/02/2022 21:01

No op is not in same position because ndn still has row over her strip. Who is the agreement between? It is only a planning issue of you want to report it for enforcement action.

MaizeAmaze · 05/02/2022 21:03

If nothing had been built, would they have had enough space to turn, and therefore go out forwards? If they never had that ability, they may not see that you have lost anything, iyswim.

I don't think you can do the same. Whether you want to report it or not depends on if you think the benefits of getting the garage (brick shed? Can they get a car in it? ) removed is greater than the potential dispute.

maggie45 · 05/02/2022 21:13

@MaizeAmaze yes iswym but it is just big enough for them to reverse and drive back out forwards so it's definitely a benefit lost, and we've now lost the same because they've built so far over to our boundary, which our deeds say they should have never done.

OP posts:
LIZS · 05/02/2022 21:17

How old are the properties? If recent did the pp for the develoment require that vehicles only exit forwards and in many cases permitted development rights are removed so any building, even a shed, requires pp. Council will not however look at boundary issues.

GiantKitten · 05/02/2022 21:20

[quote maggie45]@MaizeAmaze yes iswym but it is just big enough for them to reverse and drive back out forwards so it's definitely a benefit lost, and we've now lost the same because they've built so far over to our boundary, which our deeds say they should have never done.[/quote]
You refer in your OP to accessing garages from the ROW - did your NDN have a garage/parking space at the bottom of their garden before? If they can’t access that now, and can’t get car into new garage, where are they parking?

(I would be contacting the council btw. I wasn’t serious about you building your shed! What do the other neighbours think?)

maggie45 · 05/02/2022 21:37

@GiantKitten they have a driveway at the front they're parking in. They want access to their garage to unload things into their shed, but my understanding is that they can't stop their vehicle on my section of the path to unload, and they can't fit their car in there shed. So technically they have forgone their right for access?

The previous owner had a garage in their garden, not on the path, which is how they were all built originally, so people could drive around the back, use the ROW path and pull forward, to reverse into their garages.

OP posts:
TizerorFizz · 05/02/2022 21:57

You need to see a solicitor about enforcing the right of way. Also talk to planning. Why didn’t you do anything when they were building it?

Leftbutcameback · 05/02/2022 22:01

No, the right of way isn't cancelled by their action. In fact it takes a very very long time for any right of way to be effectively extinguished. I would suggest you take advice on this as it sounds like it could be awkward.

BreadInCaptivity · 05/02/2022 22:29

You seem to be conflating a few different issues.

It's irrelevant whether your neighbours have forgone their ROW and thus it's ok for you to build a shed on your "share" off the access.

You would simply be in breech of planning as they are and risk (as they have) being reported to the council and potentially having to take the building down.

If you do put up a shed there is really nothing they can do about it other than report you - which would mean reporting themselves as well.

However you risk another neighbour reporting you both.

Your choices are to let it go or report them (building your own shed as is, just adds to the problem) or contact all the neighbours and agree to put in a joint planning application to allow everyone to incorporate the access path into their garden.

Even if you did this it might not be successful as it could be argued that it removes the ability to exit/enter the property from the rear which could be important in the event of a fire for example.

Realistically you should have challenged them when the garage was built but you could still do so now.

They can't stop you building a shed is the upshot, but you're just putting your other neighbour in the same position as you and literally pushing the problem up the street.

MrMrsJones · 06/02/2022 08:27

@maggie45

The orange highlights the path, the grey shows where they've build their garage and the green dot shows where they've put their door. I hope this helps and clarifies
Thank you

So they have cut off the property to the right, from access.

This can't be correct, I would report it

MrMrsJones · 06/02/2022 08:31

Sometimes people can't get their heads around words and pictures are better.

TizerorFizz · 06/02/2022 08:45

A right of way over private land is a legal matter and separate from planning permission. You can get planning permission over a right of way! However it’s subject to diversion so it is maintained as a right of way. Start by talking to planning but maintaining your amenity to turn your car around and use the right of way is a legal matter. It’s on the deeds so it’s definitely a legal issue.