woz

I do wonder if there has been an element of this. The person in question spends the best part of every summer away from the property so the "enjoyment of property" in the original mail would have been less him. Also some of the comments in the objection to the planning permission don't sound like his thoughts. Anyway... reasonable all the way.

Whilst your suggestion has a great deal of appeal to it I really honestly do not want to cost the guy more than I have to... I know he started it, I know he is being unpleasant and obstructive and he may consider me as an "enemy" but I don't have the energy to do the same to him, he isn't worth it... However I certainly am not going to spend my own money on it for now

There are various dates on the deeds for various matters but the one we are looking at here is rights reserved by a conveyancing dated 1953

Thank you @Adsibob and @AliG (and the others who also mentioned it) - You and other people in this topic have rightfully suggested that I check the deeds and I have taken that good advice. I don't want to get in trouble with the Land registry by posting the full document here and I certainly don't want to post anything which could be used to identify anybody so I will remove all distinguishing information and also reference to the plans. The following is from the title deeds for the property of the person who has raised the complaint (bits underlined are my edits) "Together with the right in common with the owners and occupiers for the time being of (The houses between the person complaining's property and the end of the row) and all other persons authorised to use the same to go pass and repass on foot only over and along the passage way four feet wide situate at the rear of (the houses between the person complaining property and the end of the row) aforesaid and on the South West side of (The first property in the row where the passage joins the street) Except and Reserving unto the Vendor and his successors in title and the owners and occupiers of (The rest of the houses including mine) aforesaid and all other persons authorised by him or them the right at all times to go pass and repass over and along the passage way Four feet wide at the rear of the premises hereby conveyed and (reference to the plan)." Now... I read that as I have a right to foot access along the row. But ALSO that anyone I can authorise my workers to do the same. -There is nothing in here about the right to enjoy property -There is nothing in here about not being able to move materials -It specifically allows me to pass at ALL times If I may reiterate a previous posting... I don't believe that I am a monster and I am hopefully not an idiot (although my partner may suggestion otherwise on occasion). I was never going to give the contractor permission to drive motorised vehicles down the easement (it's MAX 4 feet wide and the surface isn't great). I suppose that his only remaining complaint would be if he considers that wheel barrows, sack truck, and potentially pallet trucks don't constitute foot traffic. However I could then use the evidence that he himself has used barrows, sack trucks, and in one case a custom made dolly truck for moving concrete beams for beam and block flooring to suggest that this is a normal use.

Again, thank you for your response. You have provided me with excellent information and a good recommendation for solicitor should I need to resort to one.

Well if you were to take a photo of the back end of the houses you would be able to see that extensions have been built on almost every single one (there are >15 in the street) since they were first built. The most recent was the one that the person complaining built themselves

Thank you, that's a good point. Yes there are both water main and sewers which run through the gardens. It would be interesting to get a response on this matter from his solicitor. I'm very sure that he would reply that if it was an emergency to fix drains / water mains then he would not object. That would show for sure that he is using this course of action specifically in protest against my development. I wonder however if that would impact on the decision made by a court.

Thank you, checking the deeds is on my todo list. The houses are very old and the deeds probably aren't that specific. However we can prove that the path has been used for access and moving building materials for > hundred years.

Now that is a VERY interesting question. I will have to check.. Thank you very much.

There are other ways into my property without using this path. They are much less convenient (unpaved track / up steep steps) but I am sure that a good contractor would be able to work something out. There is also a neighbour who has permitted me access through his garden before. He's a nice guy but I don't want to impose on him more then I have to. Ironically I would have readily negotiated a position where the path access was ONLY to be used in situations where the other access was impractical, regardless of it being longer or less convenient for the workers... he just didn't give me the chance to talk it through before contacting his solicitor. As long as he is paying I'd be quite happy now for him to take it to court just to clarify the situation as to what is and is not acceptable use. Then I can work with the contractors to make that happen. At the moment it's the uncertainty due to the vague demands he made about "heavy machinery" and "builders with materials". Also, if he took me to court I would have to talk to the other residents who also rely on the same easement. They may have something to say about a situation where they could also be prevented from use of the easement. What about a situation where urgent remedial work needed to be carried out on buildings?

Hello all, In case anybody was following / interested I have received a follow up by email from the other person's solicitors. For interest I have included it below. In my mind it doesn't really move anything along so after the good advice I have received here I am thinking of responding politely with the following points: Whilst I am happy to communicate through whatever means the other person prefers I recognise the costs that they are incurring using a solicitor and so I would invite them to communicate with me directly if they so wish. Could they clarify if their objection to the use of the easement is total or if they are concerned about excessive use? If they are concerned about excessive use then would it help to assure them that I have always intended to ensure that my contractor takes all of the residents needs into consideration and that I would be very happy to supply more details and negotiate with all of the residents at a time when the amount of materials needed has been confirmed. What I would like to say is: Any use their clients made of their own property would be without relevance but what about the use they made of the property of the other people in the street between their property and the entrance? Does that set a clear expectation (By prescription)? He did know what I had planned as he was going to help calculate the load on the walls and we had talked about plans, the only parts he didn't know were small details of the design (windows). I decided to use an architect because of a few reasons including that he would do any work in his own time and I'd prefer a business relationship (never do business with friends) Given that he was aware of the project "in general" well before I changed to an architect it would seem that his objections to right of way are a continuation of his objection to the design of the building through another route When I said that bringing materials in would be "up to the builder" that was a very short sentence. He didn't attempt to clarify that and if he had done I would have told him that what I meant was that the builder would be the one moving the materials. It didn't imply that I would give the builder the freedom to do whatever they wanted (friends / neighbours / good will of residents). It's odd for a solicitor to use the word "accept" as though they have accepted a decision. Surely the solicitor should be saying that the 3rd party is "accepting" that planning permission has been granted and "stating" that use of the passageway is a separate legal issue? If their objection to the use of the easement is "total" then they should take the matter to court without delay so that it can be clarified. The solicitors correspondence: "Any use my clients have made of their own property or the passageway is entirely without relevance. It would not set any legal precedent on which you may rely. It is my understanding that my client had agreed to help you, as his neighbours, with your extension design and drawings. However, when he realised the extent of what you had planned, he withdrew over concerns on the impact it would have on his property. You then employed your own architect from late 2021. In previous discussions with my client you were asked how the materials were to be brought on site and replied that this would be left up to the builder. Regarding the final paragraph, whilst my clients were disappointed that the planning application was approved, they accept that planning permission is only one aspect of being able to carry out works. The use of the part of the passageway which is within my clients’ title is a separate legal issue you must deal with before works can commence if you choose to use this potential access."

Thank you for the detailed answer. It gives me a great deal of hope. Issue i "should" be pretty straight forward in my case, the houses are 200 years old and the pathway in question runs unbroken along the rear of the properties. A few of the occupants have added gates (never locked) to stop pets / children from straying. Reading the link you provide the only bit that worries me is the "excessive use" but any increase in use will be temporary (The project is an extension, not a new building). Thanks

Thank you. I will certainly be checking the deeds.

This is very good advice should offers of mediation fail. The letter from his solicitor talks about the ability to enjoy his property instead of any physical damage. They are retired and thus they may be at home during the day but I would certainly be telling my contractor that they should not be making noise outside of reasonable hours in a residential area.

My spouse is more upset with them then I am.. but I agree with mediation.