How much space does a lorry need to turn?

[Pford75]

Tread carefully Joce. I'm not familiar with the specifics of your situation and land, but we did take legal advice related to our own access way and a neighbor seeking to park on it.

In general terms, if the land is his and you have a right of way, this entitles you to pass over it on foot or in vehicles (type and size unspecified). The neighbor has to maintain the access way, but has no obligation to maintain the width, current surface etc.

From what you have said, this is his land and he is not encroaching on boundaries. That the access way has been in different use under the previous owner is unfortunate, but I would have expected the conveyance to have highlighted any claims.

Strictly speaking, RoW does not entitle you to park for loading and unloading.....so you will most likely be relying on goodwill. That's not a major problem...since I can't see why the neighbor would want to deny you the chance of parking. The only things I can see causing problems are if you block the access way or if the heavily loaded Amazon lorries start churning up the surface.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Thanks so much for the very useful pointers above - all worth knowing.

Gareth, it's very sweet of you to go through the planning here, and what you say echoes what the Senior Planning Officer at SKDC said.

We will just have to tread carefully and hope for the best.

 

[Moo]

There's an article in today's Telegraph* about a dispute over the width of a right of way. Nowhere near an exact parallel to your problem, Joce, but it was considered newsworthy because of the huge (£100k!!!) cost of the protracted legal wrangling.
If you possibly can, do try to avoid going legal.


*I can't find it on the paper's website, so can't give you a link, I'm afraid.

 

[ian]

Not the one Moo was refering to , but costly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7711458/Neighbours-five-year-dispute-over-35cm-boundary.html

Edit: found it I think.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...hropshire-land-dispute-in-civil-appeal-court/

 

[Moo]

That's the one (the second one).

But that (and the first) link do go to show how what are often petty disputes can grow to grotesque proportions. There seem to be a lot of people who are prepared to spend thousands of pounds in pursuit of their "rights" over a mere inch of land (if you have the odd hour to spare just mention 'boundary disputes' to a solicitor or a builder).

 

[Penners]

the townsfolk think all the 13 acres in front of the cottage are common land

Joce I'm not sure how relevant this is to the whole situation, but it's a widely-held misconception that common land is publicly owned. It's not. Common land is normally owned by someone, but others have certain rights over it. These vary enormously, from rights to walk over the land to rights to take certain things from the land.

 

[philpjuk100]

This is true,the village we used to live in had what was really a very wide verge known by everyone as "the common" it was used for dog walking and horse riding(some riders set some small jumps up on it) but after a visit from tribe of caravan dwellers it was left covered in scrap tyres,leylandi,trees and lots of other rubbish,this all had to be cleared by two local farmers who actually own the land.It now has a very deep ditch around it dug by the farmers.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Deary me, I can't imagine getting involved in a boundary dispute of that nature, but thanks for alerting me.

And I didn't know that about common land - how interesting. Whether they think it common land or not though, I shall fence them out ( of course respecting the public footpath) I've had enough of summer parties on our new bit of land ( even in winter!). No doubt some will get upset but they'll still have access, just not 13 acres all to themselves.

 

[Tom]

Joce, I don't know for sure but I think I remember you saying that one of the footpaths actually goes right through the land you've bought. It certainly looks like it was very close to your garden boundary in 1999. If so, I'm not sure you'll be able to stop the parties/picnics, as there doesn't seem to be any rule saying that you have to keep moving on a footpath. Therefore, people may be perfectly entitled to stop to admire the view and have some food whilst doing so. Like you say, you could apply to have the footpath moved but it would still be on your land and not far from the house, unless you plan to re-site it on someone else's land; in which case the someone else won't be best pleased either.

 

[JoceAndChris]

The summer parties for which we have zero tolerance ( and have the support of the police, who are up here constantly) involve teenagers lager and tents. Chris just drives the car out there and stands there with headlights on full beam until they all go away.

The paths exist, but they aren't marked on the official map. ( that I paid my £35 for to the Footpaths Section of LCC. ) For these reasons I plan to ignore them, fence them out and argue my corner. There are walkers' rights to roam, and there's walkers' abuse. Thinking you can march over every scrap of around 50 acres, when it belongs to someone else, is an example of the latter, and I'm sure any sane person in the Footpaths bit of the Council will think so too.

 

[Tom]

God, I didn't realise it was that bad!! :shock: You have my sympathy.

The footpaths might not exist on the map but I think I'm right in saying, as I said the other day, that if the walkers can prove they've used it for a certain length of time ( I think it's 20 years) then they'd have an argument for having it added to the map. They can certainly prove it for the last 11 years, since there's photographic evidence.

Like I said, I think the best thing you can do is get your section fenced off as soon as possible. I've had a look and I only have a couple of posts left but you can buy them for around £2 each (3" round tanalised). You're welcome to borrow our post rammer or I'll come and do them for you. You wouldn't need many just to mark the boundary.

I wish you luck with this issue. It sounds like it has the potential to be nasty but I really hope it works out easy for you It's not nice to have a boundary issue (as I know myself) and it must be awful to have to battle with the local riff raff

 

[Schoolmarm]

The right to roam doesn't apply to every field.

Only fields designated as such.

I am currently wading through "Elements of Land Law" fourth edition, by Kevin Gray and Susan Francis Gray if you want me to look anything up.

 

[Flyfisher]

The footpaths might not exist on the map but I think I'm right in saying, as I said the other day, that if the walkers can prove they've used it for a certain length of time ( I think it's 20 years) then they'd have an argument for having it added to the map. They can certainly prove it for the last 11 years, since there's photographic evidence.

That's also, more or less, my understanding. But, as long as there is nothing on the definitive map then there is, by definition, no right of way. So the walkers would have to mount a case and go through the appropriate channels and you would be able to object, perhaps also the previous landowner. There are also some things that can prevent a right of way being established. One of which, perversely, is to grant permission for people to access the land. I believe this is all tied in with 'adverse possession', i.e. you can't 'adversely' do something for which you already have permission. Or something like that. But I'm certainly no expert and, unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that probably does need some expert advice.

Joce, I've mentioned before about the CLA and their advice services. Might be worth looking into if you think there may be some protracted issues.

Like I said, I think the best thing you can do is get your section fenced off as soon as possible.

I agree. In fact, I wonder if it may harm your position if you don't do this as, possibly, the walkers might be able to claim that you've made no attempt to stop them using the land and therefore your (in)action is a sort of implied consent. Again, I don't really know about the legal technicalities, but I'd want to avoid giving them any possible excuse for trespassing.

I've had a look and I only have a couple of posts left but you can buy them for around £2 each (3" round tanalised). You're welcome to borrow our post rammer or I'll come and do them for you. You wouldn't need many just to mark the boundary.

You'll need bigger posts (and bracing) for the corners if you're going to erect a strained wire fence.
Lots of good fencing info here: http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handbooks/content/chapter/590

 

[Tom]

I've had a look and I only have a couple of posts left but you can buy them for around £2 each (3" round tanalised). You're welcome to borrow our post rammer or I'll come and do them for you. You wouldn't need many just to mark the boundary.

You'll need bigger posts (and bracing) for the corners if you're going to erect a strained wire fence. Lots of good fencing info here: http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handbooks/content/chapter/590

Well, yes, quite but I was thinking, given Joce's current situation, of something really quick and very temporary just to say "This belongs to us - keep off", sort of thing. The posts could be quite wide apart with just some tape on for now, just to establish the boundary.

 

[Penners]

I'm not sure that this is going to be of any help, but I'll pass it on anyway.

When we bought our Oxfordshire house, vehicular and pedestrian access to its driveway crossed about 15 yards of common land.

The previous residents of the house had lived there for 32 years, but no formal right-of-way across the common land was traceable by our solicitor. So he successfully requested that the previous residents should sign an affidavit, stating that they had used the access without let or hindrance for the 32 years that they had lived there (and I seem to remember his saying that 20 years was the minimum qualifying period). This was then included on the Land Registry record as a formal right-of-way.

 

[Tom]

But, as long as there is nothing on the definitive map then there is, by definition, no right of way.

Is there no exception in the definitive map for paths that may have been left off by error or being over-looked?

 

[Schoolmarm]

Yes and I believe a deadline has been set for the recording and defining of them.

 

[Tom]

Yes and I believe a deadline has been set for the recording and defining of them.

I found this, after a really quick search

"Changes to the map

The Council also has powers to make creation, extinguishment or diversion orders of rights of way known as Public Path Orders.

There is a deadline of 2026 to modify the map on claims based only on historic evidence. Claims based on use (20 years use without force, secrecy or permission) will continue.

Contact the Rights of Way Officer if you think you have evidence to add a right of way or up or downgrade a right of way status." (http://www.boroughofpoole.com/go.php?structureID=U46406d2f2d56e&ref=S464AEFF6C9555)

There's also this http://www.ramblers.org.uk/rights_of_way/current_work/countdown_2026

 

[Schoolmarm]

bugger.


So people trespassing without being noticed can keep adding paths.

There is a statement you can go and make to say what existing rights there are and then from that date onwards no more can be added I think.

 

[Tom]

[Bad Word].


So people trespassing without being noticed can keep adding paths.

Well, if this is the case and it was my land, I'd put up some CCTV with a big notice.....alongside one that says 'Private Property - No Public Right of Way'.