Cones outside boundary wall

thesocial

Anyone have some experience of this? We have a field down a dead end and when checking on animals have parked off the road on stone rubble outside the walk of a house. We have picked the spot furthest away from his entrance deliberately so not to block view or basically be an intrusion. This week we went down to check in an animal and he has cones outside. The problem is I will now have to park at an agri gate right beside his entrance which I felt was not only an intrusion but causing you to reverse into his entrance to turn. Can he legally stop us from parking there? I don't want to upset him (I believe he is one of "those" neighbours) but surely he would rather I was at the far end instead of the gate beside his entrance!

sydthebeat

So you not have an entrance into your own field?

thesocial

No, our field is at the back of another that has a public right of way. The right of way is unmarked and part of the field that has very expensive thoroughbred horses in it.!!

thesocial

Sorry I meant to add if we park at that gate to the public right of way we are blocking the road. It is the recessed boundary wall that gives enough space to park and have something pass. Apologies for small typos hate trying to email from phone.

Animord

Have they been there all week? Is it possible they are there because they are expected a big delivery themselves or are they 'permanent' cones?

mari2222

Ideally you park where you will not obstruct other road users or where you will not be on private property (the gravel/rubble area in front of person's house).............even if that means walking to the field.

Animord

But the bit of no-mans land out side anyone's house is, as far as I am aware, the public road and not owned by the householder. However, most people don't seem to understand this and place barriers. Drives me nuts.

sydthebeat

There's loads we didn't know here. As its a dead end its quite possible it's not yet taken in charge so the home owner would own to the centre of the road generally.
The main reason for the set back off the front boundary wall is to show for off street parking by the likes of post men, milk men etc.
I can understand someone being peeved if a private individual parks their car outside for an extended duration.

Big Bag of Chips

Animord wrote: »

But the bit of no-mans land out side anyone's house is, as far as I am aware, the public road and not owned by the householder. However, most people don't seem to understand this and place barriers. Drives me nuts.

Not true... I can only speak for my own situation, but when we were buying our house the estate agent told us we owned out to the middle of the road! We live in a very rural area (room for one car on the road!) and asked did that mean we could legally put up a toll?! :P

Usually the "no-mans land" outside a wall is owned and maintained by the person living inside the wall.

Surely there are not only 2 possible places for you to park? Can you not park slightly further up the road in the gate to another field, and walk a short distance. It might be a pain in the arse, but he owns the land outside his wall, so is within his rights to not have you park there. It's petty yes, but it is his right!

Animord

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Not true... I can only speak for my own situation, but when we were buying our house the estate agent told us we owned out to the middle of the road! We live in a very rural area (room for one car on the road!) and asked did that mean we could legally put up a toll?! :P

Usually the "no-mans land" outside a wall is owned and maintained by the person living inside the wall.

Surely there are not only 2 possible places for you to park? Can you not park slightly further up the road in the gate to another field, and walk a short distance. It might be a pain in the arse, but he owns the land outside his wall, so is within his rights to not have you park there. It's petty yes, but it is his right!

Ok, I have no legal knowledge about this so probably shouldn't comment. I have had a brief look and is seems that it is up to the council's by-laws. I am pretty sure that with my property I own the hedge but not the grass outside it.

henryporter

It depends on the title documents, but normally the landowner owns to the centre of the road, the road is then a right of way over that land. It is therefore the landowners responsibility to maintain that 'bit' in between their 'boundary' and the road, and by extension it is their prerogative to prevent anyone parking on it.

Lambofdave

These obstacles are a serious annoyance and are potentially hazardous to the safe travelling of road users. I know of one place where they put up bollards outside their house and then proceeded to park outside the neighbours house till they placed stones outside. If a car is damaged or an accident caused by these the home owner could have a serious case on their hands and rightly so

thesocial

Firstly thanks to everyone for their insight and I think I need to check whether it is a public road or not firstly. Just to clarify we never park for extended periods just solely to give hay to two horses and sure they are ok. Mon to fri 15-20 minutes tops. There are two options on this lane I either park in rubble back from his entrance or at a gate to an empty field right beside his entrance. I cannot make sense of it, in effect he has brought us closer. They are there a good few years and the cones serve no purpose for them in getting in or out of their house no one would be around to cause an obstruction. A few interesting ideas put forward thank you

thesocial

Oh and apologies we are walkers generally so wouldn't have any problem walking to the field but his house is the only recessed on allowing parking outside and the slanted agri gate brings the road back out. No other options it seems the houses built before his did not have to recess back

Peregrinus

henryporter wrote: »

It depends on the title documents, but normally the landowner owns to the centre of the road, the road is then a right of way over that land. It is therefore the landowners responsibility to maintain that 'bit' in between their 'boundary' and the road . . .

Yes.

henryporter wrote: »

. . . and by extension it is their prerogative to prevent anyone parking on it.

No.

Although the landowner owns up to the centre line of the road, the strip of land which is highway is subject to a public right of way, and the publice can use it as a road, which includes parking on it (subject to compliance with the usual parking laws, of course).

In this case it's not clear that the gravelled/rubble area in question is part of the highway; it may be an unfenced part of the the owner's land, not subject to a public right of way, in which case he can prevent people parking on it if he wishes.

thesocial

ok food for thought but any ideas on how I would find out... Queries about land and boundaries cause such diverse opinions.

Big Bag of Chips

Have you tried approaching the man and asking him nicely if you could park at his wall for a few minutes daily to check your animals?

That might be a better first step rather than looking into the legalities of boundaries etc and going at him with that.

thesocial

Ha ha it would be a nice step and we initially did many months ago. At that stage we were told yes but I think time has passed and he has been avoiding us since, it's pretty obvious when the cones have been stamped down where we always parked and he is rather cool with a nod in the distance and then disappears. I really think he was sorry he said yes, was caught off guard and didn't want to approach to discuss. That nod came yesterday when I was beside his entrance at the farmers gate waiting for my husband to check on animals. Would not be at all surprised of there is a cone slapped in front of that gate today but I am afraid I will know what to do with that one :-)

thesocial

Oh and sorry for any misinterpretations I am going at him at all. If he is in the right so be it and if he isn't I will just move them. It appears he may be well within his rights. As they say knowledge is power.

gijoo

Like to give a different perspective on this.

I have a family member who is in the above situation. He removed the ditch to build a wall, but planning conditions required that he had to recess 5 metres from the centre of the road, he tarmac'd outside the wall to where the old ditch met the road. In his opinion/and per land registry, it's his private property out to where the road meets his tarmac.

With the road being narrow, Local heavy vehicles have driven onto his tarmac when meeting oncoming cars, and have damaged the tarmac. I've heard him complain of parked cars leaving rubbish/fast food wrappers/ even dirty nappies outside the wall. He has considered painted high vis large stones / Planted half-barrels / hi vis cones or deliniators, but is afraid liability if a car were to hit them and damage were to be done, even though they should not be there. Could a claim be made against a person in this situation ?

In summary, he's got a reason for doing what he's done, and if it's his property he's entitled to do with it what he pleases, if it's not then he's in the wrong, but I would agree with the previous poster who suggested have a chat with him.

Pat Mustard

gijoo wrote: »

He has considered painted high vis large stones / Planted half-barrels / hi vis cones or deliniators, but is afraid liability if a car were to hit them and damage were to be done, even though they should not be there. Could a claim be made against a person in this situation ?

Pretty much an engineering question, I think. You could try the Planning and Construction forum.

If your family member wants to look after this issue properly and in accordance with planning permission and other necessary standards, then he should talk to a civil engineer who deals with planning issues regularly.

Peregrinus

gijoo wrote: »

Like to give a different perspective on this.

I have a family member who is in the above situation. He removed the ditch to build a wall, but planning conditions required that he had to recess 5 metres from the centre of the road, he tarmac'd outside the wall to where the old ditch met the road. In his opinion/and per land registry, it's his private property out to where the road meets his tarmac. . .

Per the land registry, in all likelihood, it's his private property up to the centreline of the road. But private property can be subject to a public right of way, and (if this matter is ever litigated) the question will be whether, by removing the ditch, erecting a wall some distance back and putting tarmac on the area outside the wall he has effectively dedicated an additional strip of land as a public highway.

I don't think there'll be a conclusive answer to that question unless there is litigation on the subject, but I suspect the answer would be yes, he has. He should probably talk to the council about whether there is anything he can do now to rebut any presumption that the extra land has been added to the highway - painted lines, a notice, a kerb, bollards. But the reasons which led the council to impose planning requirements requiring the wall to be set back may also preclude any other barrier being erected.