Right of way

An Ri rua

I have to admit that I don't understand how houses could be built into a lane with tenuous access to the public road?
How did they get FPP originally? It would be worth studying their submissions.
I don't see how the planners would give it if the houses were being built on fresh sites with no ROW originally. Even if they were, within a short time of driving in and out from their home, they'd have established ROW naturally.
Can you elaborate, OP, whether the land they were all built on was previously owned by the owner of your private road and land.

Birdnuts

An Ri rua wrote: »

I have to admit that I don't understand how houses could be built into a lane with tenuous access to the public road?
How did they get FPP originally? It would be worth studying their submissions.
I don't see how the planners would give it if the houses were being built on fresh sites with no ROW originally. Even if they were, within a short time of driving in and out from their home, they'd have established ROW naturally.
Can you elaborate, OP, whether the land they were all built on was previously owned by the owner of your private road and land.

Well nothing would surprise me on that front - the amount of newish houses in rural areas with frontage on to dangerous blind bends etc. is something you wouldn't see in any other modern European country with a competent planning system

Jeff2

I can't believe anyone working from home in IT would depend on internet that trees could interfere with.

That would be silly just to start with.

ganmo

maestroamado wrote: »

I agree but though i am in agreement with the OP it is strange they have agreed with 3 of the houses and not with one house.


I am confident we will be told.
Bushes have little effect on mobile broadband as its airbourne.now a broadleaf forest be different.
AFAIK the rule with clippings is we can clip what is growing into our property from another persons property.
The cuttings need to be left on the property of where the bush/tree is planted.
Even though i agree with you i expect these people know this.
I think the OP needs to start thinking that all 4 property have same rights...

you can cut branches over your property you can OFFER them back to your neighbour but if they refuse to take them they're your problem

MrMusician18

Jeff2 wrote: »

I can't believe anyone working from home in IT would depend on internet that trees could interfere with.

That would be silly just to start with.

I work from home and our broadband is provided by a WISP (Eurona), not in IT though. Trees can and do block reception - I had to trim a bush there recently that encroached on our line of sight.

Sometimes WISPs, and Satellite internet are the only choices for stable broadband in isolated locations (such as up a rural RoW). There is nothing wrong with that type of service.

Sure you could equally say that it would be daft to work from home and depend on broadband that a gust of wind or rotten branch could take out.

kerryjack

Jeff2 wrote: »

I can't believe anyone working from home in IT would depend on internet that trees could interfere with.

That would be silly just to start with.

Not that silly in the times we are living in, have you not been listening to all the media reports about people being asked to work from home.

chooseusername

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The OP is a bit thin on details but it would be straightforward to determine if his excuse was credible. i.e. that the felled branches were between the broadband antenna on the property and the WISP mast. If not we'll then maybe you're right and that it's just an ignorant person taking liberties.

But assuming that the house owner is telling the truth I'd tend to assume that people often do things out of ignorance and stupidity rather than malice. .....

You'd be surprised at the number of people that believe their right of way over land gives them ownership of that land.
About 25 years ago a relative sold 2 plots which meant giving up all his road frontage to a small out-farm, about 15 acres.
He kept a ROW down between one house and boundary ditch, about 50 yds.long.
Everything went good, he gravelled the path,flailed the ditch and mowed the edge.
Fast forward 15 years, house changed hands.
New owner objected to the ditch flailing and edge mowing," I'll maintain it myself".
Then the fight started.
He was fully convinced he still owned the land, even after seeing landregistry and co.co. planning maps.
A visit to his solicitor followed, the same one who did the original conveyancing ,
I don't know how it went, but I believe the solicitor thought it best not to bill him for his services.

Neddyusa

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I work from home and our broadband is provided by a WISP (Eurona), not in IT though. Trees can and do block reception - I had to trim a bush there recently that encroached on our line of sight.

Sometimes WISPs, and Satellite internet are the only choices for stable broadband in isolated locations (such as up a rural RoW). There is nothing wrong with that type of service.

Sure you could equally say that it would be daft to work from home and depend on broadband that a gust of wind or rotten branch could take out.

Come on Music Man, just gather the branches and call over to the OP to apologise

maestroamado

chooseusername wrote: »

You'd be surprised at the number of people that believe their right of way over land gives them ownership of that land.
About 25 years ago a relative sold 2 plots which meant giving up all his road frontage to a small out-farm, about 15 acres.
He kept a ROW down between one house and boundary ditch, about 50 yds.long.
Everything went good, he gravelled the path,flailed the ditch and mowed the edge.
Fast forward 15 years, house changed hands.
New owner objected to the ditch flailing and edge mowing," I'll maintain it myself".
Then the fight started.
He was fully convinced he still owned the land, even after seeing landregistry and co.co. planning maps.
A visit to his solicitor followed, the same one who did the original conveyancing ,
I don't know how it went, but I believe the solicitor thought it best not to bill him for his services.

Did you not know when it comes to land the rules not apply to FARMERS...

Buford T. Justice XIX

maestroamado wrote: »

Did you not know when it comes to land the rules not apply to FARMERS...

Mod note: Easy, tiger. Just reminding you that posts like that in F&F are considered trolling, i.e. posting for a reaction. If that's your fallback posting type then best if you move on before the cards start coming out.

Buford T. Justice.

Donald Trump

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I work from home and our broadband is provided by a WISP (Eurona), not in IT though. Trees can and do block reception - I had to trim a bush there recently that encroached on our line of sight.

Sometimes WISPs, and Satellite internet are the only choices for stable broadband in isolated locations (such as up a rural RoW). There is nothing wrong with that type of service.

Sure you could equally say that it would be daft to work from home and depend on broadband that a gust of wind or rotten branch could take out.

We understand that. But this new neighbour cut the trees before actually moving in. If access to broadband was of such importance to them, you'd think that they could have checked it before buying.



I'm not saying to go get quotes for mature trees to replace it, nor am I saying to start sending solicitors letters. I would not give advice as to what to do - all I know is that it seems like the new neighbour was taking liberties and likely knew full well they were acting the bollix.

sweet_trip

Maybe it was something to do with the two huge storms we had last week that knocked hundreds of trees and blocked roads around the country?

ganmo

Big trees cause big damage.
And a cut made with a chainsaw looks a lot different than a split/crack from wind

maestroamado

maestroamado wrote: »

Did you not know when it comes to land the rules not apply to FARMERS...

It was meant as a joke... i have good friends farmers and this is the way i talk to them.


What is trolling?

Sheep breeder

kerryjack wrote: »

I hate these treads that put up half a story and than don't reply or mods usually close because it's like a hot topic. plenty of us out there that use a right of way or has a lane that other people use and has a right of way. But like 4 houses built up a lane that has only a right of way like that's off the charts, mad stuff.

Have to agree with you on this, op says they own the lane fine, 4 houses built on who’s land. If op sold The sites they would have to have given a right of way to each house on the lane when selling or gifting. If not the person selling or gifting would have had to give a share of their right of way with each site.
We live on a lane owned by two people, the first 3 quarters owned by one person and the last quarter by another person who has a right of way on the first part. On our lane with the two owners and there is 7 right of ways. When we looked for planning permission with had to show our paperwork to show how we were getting to the public road and it had to be legal.

Jeff2

kerryjack wrote: »

Not that silly in the times we are living in, have you not been listening to all the media reports about people being asked to work from home.

Someone working in IT needs secure internet not something that not is landline.

If someone working in IFSC was working from home it would be laughable if they could be blocked by trees.

An Ri rua

Jeff2 wrote: »

I can't believe anyone working from home in IT would depend on internet that trees could interfere with.

That would be silly just to start with.

BARKing mad....

MrMusician18

Jeff2 wrote: »

Someone working in IT needs secure internet not something that not is landline.

If someone working in IFSC was working from home it would be laughable if they could be blocked by trees.

It would indeed be a laughable excuse, so they would be expected to have the trees trimmed to maybe the integrity of their connection.

WISPs and Satellite internet are often much faster, more stable and all around better offering if the only broadband you can get via landline is adsl or a 3/4g dongle.
It would be perfectly appropriate for a rural IT professional to work from home via satellite or WISP.

WISP companies are generally SMEs based in the community so there's always that bonus too of supporting local employment.

Donald Trump

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It would indeed be a laughable excuse, so they would be expected to have the trees trimmed to maybe the integrity of their connection.

WISPs and Satellite internet are often much faster, more stable and all around better offering if the only broadband you can get via landline is adsl or a 3/4g dongle.
It would be perfectly appropriate for a rural IT professional to work from home via satellite or WISP.

WISP companies are generally SMEs based in the community so there's always that bonus too of supporting local employment.

That's completely irrelevant. The houseowners preference does not give them any right to damage anyone else's property. Simple as that.


You can buy a house in a housing estate and then decide that next doors 20 year old extension is blocking your view or casting shadows into your garden. You can't just wait for them to go on holiday for a week and get in there with a sledge and a backactor and knock it because you claim it was blocking the broadband provider you prefer.

MrMusician18

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's completely irrelevant. The houseowners preference does not give them any right to damage anyone else's property. Simple as that.


You can buy a house in a housing estate and then decide that next doors 20 year old extension is blocking your view or casting shadows into your garden. You can't just wait for them to go on holiday for a week and get in there with a sledge and a backactor and knock it because you claim it was blocking the broadband provider you prefer.

If you actually go and read my post I never said it did give them the right to interfere with another's property.

What I did say was that solicitors letters, bills from nursery's and being difficult over a few branches is a ridiculous way to be carrying on. And something this farmer may eventually regret.