Right of way access

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

My wife and I recently bought a house knowing that the local angling
club had access to their lake via the corner of our driveway. We were
informed by the vendors and agents that this was a "gentlemans
agreement" for pedestrian access with occasional vehicle access for
maintenance with prior arrangement. Nothing appears on the land
registry and/or title deeds. Nor do they pay any monies to the
maintenance and upkeep of the driveway.

The angling club have now been in touch with me and apparently even
though we own the land right up to the lake access gate we must keep
enough room for disabled vehicle access at all times. This works to
out to about half of the driveway that must be kept clear. The house
is 20years old and the previous owners were very elderly and never had
a car. The driveway is usuable for two cars but anymore than that
would infringe on their vehicle access.

Any thoughts?

I would also like an opinion on what were to happen if a fisherman
fell over a bucket on my driveway and broke their leg on the way to
the lake? Does a clearly defined route need to be laid out?

Thank you.

Richard

On Dec 4, 10:42 pm, rjre <rjredwa...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> My wife and I recently bought a house knowing that the local angling
> club had access to their lake via the corner of our driveway. We were
> informed by the vendors and agents that this was a "gentlemans
> agreement" for pedestrian access with occasional vehicle access for
> maintenance with prior arrangement. Nothing appears on the land
> registry and/or title deeds. Nor do they pay any monies to the
> maintenance and upkeep of the driveway.
>
> The angling club have now been in touch with me and apparently even
> though we own the land right up to the lake access gate we must keep
> enough room for disabled vehicle access at all times. This works to
> out to about half of the driveway that must be kept clear. The house
> is 20years old and the previous owners were very elderly and never had
> a car. The driveway is usuable for two cars but anymore than that
> would infringe on their vehicle access.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I would also like an opinion on what were to happen if a fisherman
> fell over a bucket on my driveway and broke their leg on the way to
> the lake? Does a clearly defined route need to be laid out?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Richard

This sounds like a real problem, you wil need to check with the
council ROW office and check the 'list of roads' and 'definitive map'
which is many things but not definitive. Lots of ROW offices do not
know the law when it comes to vehicular access.

It is one of those areas where lawyers get rich, as very few know the
law.

If they have had access for 20 years, I believe, and 'you' have not
blocked the road off at least once a year they will possibly have
permanent rights to use the access, possibly only on foot not
vehicles, but is someone gave them permissive rights years ago they
could have vehicular access as well. But the law does keep changing.

Now how do you find out? Your could be onto a loser here, it could be
your word against theirs, I am sure they have loads of members that
will swear they have used this access since the dawn of time.

I used to live on a private road, if anyone had an accident on my
section of that road I was liable for any compensation, and I had to
repair the road.

From my experience I would NEVER live on a private road again,
especially in this litigious age.

I wish you luck!

Ted

On 4 Dec, 22:42, rjre <rjredwa...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> My wife and I recently bought a house knowing that the local angling
> club had access to their lake via the corner of our driveway. We were
> informed by the vendors and agents that this was a "gentlemans
> agreement" for pedestrian access with occasional vehicle access for
> maintenance with prior arrangement. Nothing appears on the land
> registry and/or title deeds. Nor do they pay any monies to the
> maintenance and upkeep of the driveway.
>
> The angling club have now been in touch with me and apparently even
> though we own the land right up to the lake access gate we must keep
> enough room for disabled vehicle access at all times. This works to
> out to about half of the driveway that must be kept clear. The house
> is 20years old and the previous owners were very elderly and never had
> a car. The driveway is usuable for two cars but anymore than that
> would infringe on their vehicle access.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I would also like an opinion on what were to happen if a fisherman
> fell over a bucket on my driveway and broke their leg on the way to
> the lake? Does a clearly defined route need to be laid out?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Richard

I have no knowledge of this whatsoever, but having followed several
legal cases in Scotland over access, (and of course no doubt, there
will be someone who comes along and says it's all different up here),
but the key area of these legal cases was what was the limits of the
appertainances to the property. Several wealthy landowners here are
claiming that their appertainances extend considerably further than
would be expected of the rest of us !!

This, in my understanding, is the ground round ones house that makes
the property private, and is therefore sacrosanct. That is it cannot
have an ROW on it - if it does, you can apply to have the ROW closed
if you offer an alternative route. You don't say how far from your
house this access is, but it could well fall within the area that
makes your house private and therefore access is challengeable
overall.

Sadly this may cost you money but that may be cheaper than the public
liability insurance you're going to have to take out!

Rob

The message
<153f7f94-5436-4123-a7c4-a1af31a8a8a4@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
from Ted <tedferenc@hotmail.com> contains these words:

> As I said this is a quagmire, the definitive map may contain the
> 'latest' data, but it could been last updated several years ago. The
> data it contains is not necessarily correct, but if you are following
> the a route from that you do have a good defence.

It was my understanding that the Definitive Map was the public record of
all recorded PROWs so I did a quick google. The first site just happened
to be Shropshire CC but I have no reason to suppose their view is
unique:-

"The Definitive Map is the County Council's legal record of Public
Rights of Way in Shropshire and was prepared under the provisions of the
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It shows public
footpaths, bridleways and some vehicular rights of way. It is conclusive
evidence of the existence of the rights of way although it should be
noted that Public Rights of Way may exist that are not shown on the map
and claims are continuously being made to add such routes.

The Definitive Map and Statement can only be amended by a legal order.
The only exception to this is when a landowner actually dedicates a
route across their land. Any order proposing a change to a right of way
shown on the map or adding routes to the map will be advertised so that
everyone has an opportunity to participate and comment on the proposal.

The relevant date of the Definitive Map for Shropshire is 1st September 1965.

Shropshire County Council has a duty under the provisions of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to continuously review the Definitive
Map, to find out more about the review process and to access the
Council's policy follow the Definitive Map Review link on this page.

If you need to see the legal record of Public Rights of Way we recommend
that you inspect a working copy of the Definitive Map that has been
amended to take account of legal changes to the network since 1964. This
can be inspected during normal working hours at the Countryside Access
Team Office. Please telephone 01743 255056 before making a visit, to
ensure that the map is not already in use by others. Visitors must go to
Main Reception, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury."

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

On Dec 5, 1:12 pm, Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message
> <153f7f94-5436-4123-a7c4-a1af31a8a...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> from Ted <tedfer...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
> > As I said this is a quagmire, the definitive map may contain the
> > 'latest' data, but it could been last updated several years ago. The
> > data it contains is not necessarily correct, but if you are following
> > the a route from that you do have a good defence.
>
> It was my understanding that the Definitive Map was the public record of
> all recorded PROWs so I did a quick google. The first site just happened
> to be Shropshire CC but I have no reason to suppose their view is
> unique:-
>
> "The Definitive Map is the County Council's legal record of Public
> Rights of Way in Shropshire and was prepared under the provisions of the
> National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It shows public
> footpaths, bridleways and some vehicular rights of way. It is conclusive
> evidence of the existence of the rights of way although it should be
> noted that Public Rights of Way may exist that are not shown on the map
> and claims are continuously being made to add such routes.
>
> The Definitive Map and Statement can only be amended by a legal order.
> The only exception to this is when a landowner actually dedicates a
> route across their land. Any order proposing a change to a right of way
> shown on the map or adding routes to the map will be advertised so that
> everyone has an opportunity to participate and comment on the proposal.
>
> The relevant date of the Definitive Map for Shropshire is 1st September 1965.
>
> Shropshire County Council has a duty under the provisions of the
> Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to continuously review the Definitive
> Map, to find out more about the review process and to access the
> Council's policy follow the Definitive Map Review link on this page.
>
> If you need to see the legal record of Public Rights of Way we recommend
> that you inspect a working copy of the Definitive Map that has been
> amended to take account of legal changes to the network since 1964. This
> can be inspected during normal working hours at the Countryside Access
> Team Office. Please telephone 01743 255056 before making a visit, to
> ensure that the map is not already in use by others. Visitors must go to
> Main Reception, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury."
>
> --
> Roger Chapman
> Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
> 89 miles as the crow flies,
> considerably more as the walker drives.

There is the get out clause:-

'it should be, noted that Public Rights of Way may exist that are not
shown on the map'

Plus there are cases where they have got it wrong and the status of
the road/track is wrong, hence the continuous refinement.

I am sure you are aware of the old legal term, 'once a highway, always
a highway' there have been cases where a house/building has been build
years ago on an old road. The definitive map will probably not show
that road, if it did the house probably would not be there.

Ted

Richard

Legally there is no right of way over your land unless it has been in
continuous and unimpeded use for the last twenty years and even then it only
gives a common law right and not one that has anything other than squatter's
rights. You are completely entitled(if it is not registered on the Land
Registry) to forbid use of it so long as it hasnt been in continuous use for
the same purpose for twenty years. This is as the law stands. However, the
legal position is not much use if you want to remain a good neighbour or
member of the community.

What I would suggest is that you point out the legal position to the fishing
club and say that whilst you are prepared to allow access across your land
for their members, you are not prepared to grant them any licence or right
of way and nor are you prepared to have your use of the property
inconvenienced by legal restrictions affecting them - disabled access is
not, as I understand it, imposed upon private dwellings but upon public
organisations. Therefore, it is their problem to find a way of access for
disabled people and not yours. As I understand it, this does not contravene
the Disabilities Acts (though I am not an expert on that area). Send it in
writing or get your solicitor to do the same if you want them to understand
clearly.

Should you so wish, there is no reason why you couldnt also offer to sell
them a strip of land upto the gate, imposing on them such use and conditions
as you decide you want ie restricting use to pedestrians and vehicles for
maintenance only, and they can then work out how they sort out disability
access themselves, bearing in kind that they would be in breach of their
legal contract with you, should they use the land for any other purpose than
you state.

Either way, I think you have to be firm but polite with them about the legal
position and equally look for a compromise and make efforts to ensure a good
result ensues for all concerned.

Rob

"rjre" <rjredwards@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:38ea4b69-1f57-4eea-ac62-553e473e4c29@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> My wife and I recently bought a house knowing that the local angling
> club had access to their lake via the corner of our driveway. We were
> informed by the vendors and agents that this was a "gentlemans
> agreement" for pedestrian access with occasional vehicle access for
> maintenance with prior arrangement. Nothing appears on the land
> registry and/or title deeds. Nor do they pay any monies to the
> maintenance and upkeep of the driveway.
>
> The angling club have now been in touch with me and apparently even
> though we own the land right up to the lake access gate we must keep
> enough room for disabled vehicle access at all times. This works to
> out to about half of the driveway that must be kept clear. The house
> is 20years old and the previous owners were very elderly and never had
> a car. The driveway is usuable for two cars but anymore than that
> would infringe on their vehicle access.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I would also like an opinion on what were to happen if a fisherman
> fell over a bucket on my driveway and broke their leg on the way to
> the lake? Does a clearly defined route need to be laid out?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Richard
>

"Roger" <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030313134344756748F55@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message
> <960a53a8-f02d-43a1-8ef4-91dc7983514f@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
> from Ted <tedferenc@hotmail.com> contains these words:
> As far as PROWs are concerned vehicular rights should only exist (other
> than for the landowner) on byways open to all traffic (BOATS or whatever
> they are known as these days) although ISTR that disabled carriages can
> legally be used on footpaths (unlike bicycles).

I am not sure that you even need to check the PROWs because they would have
been evident on the land registry search if they existed, and if there is
nothing there, I would presume that there isnt one. As regards a private
right of way, it falls back on the 20 year rule, bearing in mind that
continuous possession of property fro 12 years also gives squatters rights
over it but i am not sure rights of way are classed as occupation.

Rob

Ted wrote:
> On Dec 5, 1:15 pm, Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
>> Ted wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 9:28 am, Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The message <38ea4b69-1f57-4eea-ac62-553e473e4...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
>>>> from rjre <rjredwa...@googlemail.com> contains these words:
>>>>> My wife and I recently bought a house knowing that the local angling
>>>>> club had access to their lake via the corner of our driveway. We were
>>>>> informed by the vendors and agents that this was a "gentlemans
>>>>> agreement" for pedestrian access with occasional vehicle access for
>>>>> maintenance with prior arrangement. Nothing appears on the land
>>>>> registry and/or title deeds. Nor do they pay any monies to the
>>>>> maintenance and upkeep of the driveway.
>>>> What a potential can of worms.
>>>>> The angling club have now been in touch with me and apparently even
>>>>> though we own the land right up to the lake access gate we must keep
>>>>> enough room for disabled vehicle access at all times. This works to
>>>>> out to about half of the driveway that must be kept clear. The house
>>>>> is 20years old and the previous owners were very elderly and never had
>>>>> a car. The driveway is usuable for two cars but anymore than that
>>>>> would infringe on their vehicle access.
Post in uk.legal.moderated for a better legal opinion, but it almost
certainly isn't about ROW.

What does the solicitor who did the conveyance for you say, I assume you
asked him for advice about this access issue.

Useful info to obtain includes:
How long has the present anglers club owned/leased the lake.

Who owned the land before the house was built ?

Did/do they also own the fishing lake

In the mean time you could ask the angling club for a copy of their
access agreement !

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:54:26 -0000, Rob Devereux wrote:

> What I would suggest is that you point out the legal position to the fishing
> club and say that whilst you are prepared to allow access across your land
> for their members, you are not prepared to grant them any licence or right
> of way and nor are you prepared to have your use of the property
> inconvenienced by legal restrictions affecting them

Be sure to do this in writing - and keep copies.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

The message <1184512c-998f-479c-aae1-11d06933f6ab@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
from Ted <tedferenc@hotmail.com> contains these words:

> > > As I said this is a quagmire, the definitive map may contain the
> > > 'latest' data, but it could been last updated several years ago. The
> > > data it contains is not necessarily correct, but if you are following
> > > the a route from that you do have a good defence.

snip

> > The Definitive Map and Statement can only be amended by a legal order.
> > The only exception to this is when a landowner actually dedicates a
> > route across their land. Any order proposing a change to a right of way
> > shown on the map or adding routes to the map will be advertised so that
> > everyone has an opportunity to participate and comment on the proposal.
> >
> > The relevant date of the Definitive Map for Shropshire is 1st
> > September 1965.
> >
> > Shropshire County Council has a duty under the provisions of the
> > Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to continuously review the Definitive
> > Map, to find out more about the review process and to access the
> > Council's policy follow the Definitive Map Review link on this page.
> >
> > If you need to see the legal record of Public Rights of Way we recommend
> > that you inspect a working copy of the Definitive Map that has been
> > amended to take account of legal changes to the network since 1964. This
> > can be inspected during normal working hours at the Countryside Access
> > Team Office. Please telephone 01743 255056 before making a visit, to
> > ensure that the map is not already in use by others. Visitors must go to
> > Main Reception, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury."


> There is the get out clause:-

> 'it should be, noted that Public Rights of Way may exist that are not
> shown on the map'

Not really, a least in the context of your remark above saying the data
is out of date. The CC has a statutory duty to keep the map up to date.

> Plus there are cases where they have got it wrong and the status of
> the road/track is wrong, hence the continuous refinement.

It is not open to the CC to change the map other than as a result of a
'legal order'. I was surprised by the implication that there is still a
constant flood of newly discovered PROWs finding their way onto the
definitive map. IIRC the peak of registration by interested parties was
in the late 1960s shortly after the 1965 date referred to above when the
map was first prepared.

> I am sure you are aware of the old legal term, 'once a highway, always
> a highway' there have been cases where a house/building has been build
> years ago on an old road. The definitive map will probably not show
> that road, if it did the house probably would not be there.

It is not a phrase that would stand a longevity test. Maps are littered
with houses sited on Roman roads. As a general rule it is right though.
Public rights cannot be extinguished by lack of use unlike private
rights. The likelihood of anyone proving that a long established house
has been built on an unrecorded PROW is however extremely low.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

The message
<5c9f339d-d3c7-4f3b-8b39-02ae3a2a522e@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
from Ted <tedferenc@hotmail.com> contains these words:

> One of the 'best' cases is Alstonfeld, in Derbyshire, where someone
> bought the manorial rights to the village, and charged the residents
> thousands of pounds to allow them to cross the 1 - 2 ft grass verge in
> front of their houses.

> The latest CROW act is lilkely to cause the same problem, when the
> green lane/track you drive on to get to your house no longer has
> vehicular access, you will need to get an 'easement' from the
> landowner.

Not any more.

I can find no trace of the Alstonefield case but I did turn up a recent
House of Lords case which sets the precedent and overturns the previous
judgement in favour of Bakewell Management Ltd concerning charges for
access over Newtown common, which is near Newbury in Hampshire, unlike
Bakewell which is near Alstonefield.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

The message <fj6oqf$uj$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
from "Rob Devereux" <rob.devereux@linacre.ox.ac.uk> contains these words:

> I am not sure that you even need to check the PROWs because they would have
> been evident on the land registry search if they existed, and if there is
> nothing there, I would presume that there isnt one. As regards a private
> right of way, it falls back on the 20 year rule, bearing in mind that
> continuous possession of property fro 12 years also gives squatters rights
> over it but i am not sure rights of way are classed as occupation.

Rob I don't think the Land Registry carries PROW information. AFAIK it
is only concerned with registering private rights. The Local Authority
has that information on their Definitive Map. They also maintain
register(s) of commons and village greens.

As to adverse possession (squatters rights) merely passing over a
property is no basis. Squatters rights requires occupation with intent
to deprive the owner of his property. The law has recently changed and
there is different treatment depending on whether or not the property is
registered (claims after 10 years for registered land followed by 2
years for the owner to evict the squatter should he wish to do so).
AFAICT there is also case law which suggests that you can't squat on a
PROW but I have lost the reference to the case and in any case when I
had it couldn't get any actual information on the ruling. (Anyone able
to shed any light on this aspect?)

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

The message <31303030313134344756F88F97@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>
from Roger <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:

> AFAICT there is also case law which suggests that you can't squat on a
> PROW but I have lost the reference to the case and in any case when I
> had it couldn't get any actual information on the ruling. (Anyone able
> to shed any light on this aspect?)

London Borough of Bromley v Morritt (1999) 78 P & CR D37 but I still
can't find a summary of the actual judgement.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Bitstring <31303030313134344756EBFB23@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, from the
wonderful person Roger <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> said
<snip>
>> I am sure you are aware of the old legal term, 'once a highway, always
>> a highway' there have been cases where a house/building has been build
>> years ago on an old road. The definitive map will probably not show
>> that road, if it did the house probably would not be there.
>
>It is not a phrase that would stand a longevity test. Maps are littered
>with houses sited on Roman roads. As a general rule it is right though.
>Public rights cannot be extinguished by lack of use unlike private
>rights. The likelihood of anyone proving that a long established house
>has been built on an unrecorded PROW is however extremely low.

Round here there are plenty of houses (and extensions, barns, garages)
built on RECORDED Prows .. mostly because the planning department didn't
talk to the ROW people. When they get spotted, the ROW gets diverted ..
never known one where the house got knocked down. 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
10,002 Km walked. 1,952 Km PROWs surveyed. 35.5% complete.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:20:43 GMT, Roger <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Public rights cannot be extinguished by lack of use unlike private
>rights

The highways act 1984?? does allow for the highways authority to do
this, on the grounds of lack of use. I actually lost a public enquiry
on this because the 3 landowners concerned attended the enquiry and I
was the only objector present, the 100 person petition claiming that
the lack of use was only because the landowners had allowed the hedges
to block the passage wasn't considered relevant because the
petitioners were not at the enquiry.

AJH

On Dec 5, 6:20 pm, Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <1184512c-998f-479c-aae1-11d06933f...@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> from Ted <tedfer...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
> > > > As I said this is a quagmire, the definitive map may contain the
> > > > 'latest' data, but it could been last updated several years ago. The
> > > > data it contains is not necessarily correct, but if you are following
> > > > the a route from that you do have a good defence.
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > > The Definitive Map and Statement can only be amended by a legal order.
> > > The only exception to this is when a landowner actually dedicates a
> > > route across their land. Any order proposing a change to a right of way
> > > shown on the map or adding routes to the map will be advertised so that
> > > everyone has an opportunity to participate and comment on the proposal.
>
> > > The relevant date of the Definitive Map for Shropshire is 1st
> > > September 1965.
>
> > > Shropshire County Council has a duty under the provisions of the
> > > Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to continuously review the Definitive
> > > Map, to find out more about the review process and to access the
> > > Council's policy follow the Definitive Map Review link on this page.
>
> > > If you need to see the legal record of Public Rights of Way we recommend
> > > that you inspect a working copy of the Definitive Map that has been
> > > amended to take account of legal changes to the network since 1964. This
> > > can be inspected during normal working hours at the Countryside Access
> > > Team Office. Please telephone 01743 255056 before making a visit, to
> > > ensure that the map is not already in use by others. Visitors must go to
> > > Main Reception, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury."
> > There is the get out clause:-
> > 'it should be, noted that Public Rights of Way may exist that are not
> > shown on the map'
>
> Not really, a least in the context of your remark above saying the data
> is out of date. The CC has a statutory duty to keep the map up to date.
>
> > Plus there are cases where they have got it wrong and the status of
> > the road/track is wrong, hence the continuous refinement.
>
> It is not open to the CC to change the map other than as a result of a
> 'legal order'. I was surprised by the implication that there is still a
> constant flood of newly discovered PROWs finding their way onto the
> definitive map. IIRC the peak of registration by interested parties was
> in the late 1960s shortly after the 1965 date referred to above when the
> map was first prepared.
>
> > I am sure you are aware of the old legal term, 'once a highway, always
> > a highway' there have been cases where a house/building has been build
> > years ago on an old road. The definitive map will probably not show
> > that road, if it did the house probably would not be there.
>
> It is not a phrase that would stand a longevity test. Maps are littered
> with houses sited on Roman roads. As a general rule it is right though.
> Public rights cannot be extinguished by lack of use unlike private
> rights. The likelihood of anyone proving that a long established house
> has been built on an unrecorded PROW is however extremely low.
>
> --
> Roger Chapman
> Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
> 89 miles as the crow flies,
> considerably more as the walker drives.

Just because the CC has a 'statutory duty' does not mean they will
actually do anything.

I belive 'Highway' is a legal term, as has been mentioned in another
thread houses are built on Highways, illegally, and they get away with
it, because of how the inquiry works. Not all inquiries do actually
bother to follow the law as laid down.

As I said this area is a real minefiled

The message
<c249ae31-0f86-41fc-b20e-c15869f26238@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
from Ted <tedferenc@hotmail.com> contains these words:

> Just because the CC has a 'statutory duty' does not mean they will
> actually do anything.

Ted have you got any actual evidence to show that Local Authorities
don't make every effort to keep their Definitive Maps up to date?

> I belive 'Highway' is a legal term, as has been mentioned in another
> thread houses are built on Highways, illegally, and they get away with
> it, because of how the inquiry works. Not all inquiries do actually
> bother to follow the law as laid down.

Highway seems to change its meaning depending on context. In some
circumstances it can mean every class of thoroughfare right down to
footpaths and in others it excludes footpaths and even the pavements
bordering motor roads.

As to inquiries not following the law again have you any evidence? FWIW
AIUI diverting footpaths round houses built on the line of a PROW
wouldn't necessarily go to a public enquiry if no objections are
received.

Landowners can and do get away with what seems on the face of it major
injustice but they usually do so by taking advantage of the legal clout
their money can buy rather than just ignoring the law.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

The message <9i7el39pgib5gbhe067au727m9pki4osnr@4ax.com>
from AJH <news@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> contains these words:

> >Public rights cannot be extinguished by lack of use unlike private
> >rights

> The highways act 1984?? does allow for the highways authority to do
> this, on the grounds of lack of use. I actually lost a public enquiry
> on this because the 3 landowners concerned attended the enquiry and I
> was the only objector present, the 100 person petition claiming that
> the lack of use was only because the landowners had allowed the hedges
> to block the passage wasn't considered relevant because the
> petitioners were not at the enquiry.

I didn't know that that was the case but there is a clear distinction
between using evidence of lack of use to support the removal of said
right and the de facto extinguishment of a private right that hasn't
been exercised in a generation (or whatever time it takes).

Do you have any further details as my access drive is also a footpath
that turns at rightangles when it reaches my house and then heads
directly downhill. I suspect that some years it is not used at all and
in 20 or 30 it will be completely impassable as the mature trees that
grow in it expand in girth and meet the walls either side. No one but
the most bloody minded access hound would want to actually use it in
preference to the nearby road. Even I take the road rather than the path
and my choice necessarily includes the 60 yards that anyone else could
avoid by keeping to the road.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

On 6 Dec, 12:31, Roger <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <9i7el39pgib5gbhe067au727m9pki4o...@4ax.com>
> from AJH <n...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> contains these words:
>
> > >Public rights cannot be extinguished by lack of use unlike private
> > >rights
> > The highways act 1984?? does allow for the highways authority to do
> > this, on the grounds of lack of use. I actually lost a public enquiry
> > on this because the 3 landowners concerned attended the enquiry and I
> > was the only objector present, the 100 person petition claiming that
> > the lack of use was only because the landowners had allowed the hedges
> > to block the passage wasn't considered relevant because the
> > petitioners were not at the enquiry.
>
> I didn't know that that was the case but there is a clear distinction
> between using evidence of lack of use to support the removal of said
> right and the de facto extinguishment of a private right that hasn't
> been exercised in a generation (or whatever time it takes).
>
> Do you have any further details as my access drive is also a footpath
> that turns at rightangles when it reaches my house and then heads
> directly downhill. I suspect that some years it is not used at all and
> in 20 or 30 it will be completely impassable as the mature trees that
> grow in it expand in girth and meet the walls either side. No one but
> the most bloody minded access hound would want to actually use it in
> preference to the nearby road. Even I take the road rather than the path
> and my choice necessarily includes the 60 yards that anyone else could
> avoid by keeping to the road.
>
> --
> Roger Chapman
> Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
> 89 miles as the crow flies,
> considerably more as the walker drives.

Surely, Roger, you are answering your own question in that there is a
totally viable alternative - in fact a preferable alternative - to
this path. Albeit, you didn't provide the alternative but the very
fact that there is one and this path would seem to at the moment to
inflict itself upon your curtilage/appertainances would suggest that
you can close off this path. It may well be that you have to do it
through the authorities but from an outsider's view you have adequate
reason.

Rob

"Roger" <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030313134344756F88F97@nospam.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <fj6oqf$uj$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
> from "Rob Devereux" <rob.devereux@linacre.ox.ac.uk> contains these words:
>
>> I am not sure that you even need to check the PROWs because they would
>> have
>> been evident on the land registry search if they existed, and if there is
>> nothing there, I would presume that there isnt one. As regards a private
>> right of way, it falls back on the 20 year rule, bearing in mind that
>> continuous possession of property fro 12 years also gives squatters
>> rights
>> over it but i am not sure rights of way are classed as occupation.
>
> Rob I don't think the Land Registry carries PROW information. AFAIK it
> is only concerned with registering private rights. The Local Authority
> has that information on their Definitive Map. They also maintain
> register(s) of commons and village greens.

Hi Roger

I am not sure about that because it is a while since I worked in the area
but from memory, they would show them if they had been on the registered
deeds and whether they are kept uptodate, I couldnt argue. In every
conveyance I've been involved with though, there is also a Local Council
search as well, which I would imagine should show rights of way.

> As to adverse possession (squatters rights) merely passing over a
> property is no basis. Squatters rights requires occupation with intent
> to deprive the owner of his property. The law has recently changed and
> there is different treatment depending on whether or not the property is
> registered (claims after 10 years for registered land followed by 2
> years for the owner to evict the squatter should he wish to do so).
> AFAICT there is also case law which suggests that you can't squat on a
> PROW but I have lost the reference to the case and in any case when I
> had it couldn't get any actual information on the ruling. (Anyone able
> to shed any light on this aspect?)

I cant say I know the area well but do remember it came up as an issue when
I was studying law and at that point it wasnt definitive.

Rob