Driving over Common Land - Let's Get Creative

[harry_angel]

This is a post for the more creatively minded out there who dislike accepting "No"!

 

Put bluntly the access to my property is terrible. It's super narrow (sub 3m), wends between other neighbouring properties, contains poor visibility and generates almost weekly complaints from delivery drivers, tradespeople, you name it. Could a fire truck get down it, in case of emergency? Maybe, but it would probably knock down the neighbours' fences in doing so.

 

It's the terrible result of a land sale in the 50s orchestrated by someone with friends in high places.

 

To create a new access, I'd need to drive c. 30m over heavily screened, secluded common land. I've tried proposing a fusion of a land swap (so the net volume of common land isn't negatively affected) plus a commercial proposition. 

 

The council who own the common have said: "forget it". My response is: "all the while I own this house, I'll be trying...so expect this to boomerang back at you".

 

I really need to get creative here and was thinking the BH hive mind might be able to help.

 

As I see it I am totally within my rights to WALK out on to this common. If I can walk out on to it then we are left with 2 questions:

 

1. how can I DRIVE on it?
2. how can I do the necessary works to be able to DRIVE on it?

 

Now coming out of leftfield I was thinking someone, somewhere must have created some kind of "technically temporary but in reality permanent", harder-standing ramp or driveway of sorts. Something that simply sits there, or is positioned there, but absolutely does not constitute "works". Doesn't involve concrete or hardcore or cement and can (technically speaking) simply be removed. Probably made of wood. Think - various railway sleeper depth slabs of wood bolted together. A caravan....simply in driveway form.

 

The implementation of something like this (ie. some wood, placed in common land, among other wood) might knock out problem No. 2. Or at least play a very long, very expensive game of tennis with the council as the ball goes back to them and the onus shifts on to them to prove this large piece of interconnected wood is in some way unlawful.

 

If that worked, you'd be left with 1 problem: how do I drive on it? 

 

Maybe you're then in to an argument about the safety of the other access. Maybe this argument runs and runs and runs.

 

Ultimately I do feel there's a way lurking somewhere in here. I almost need to box the council in to the corner somehow whereby they think: "stuff it, they'll give us the land so the net volume of common land won't be affected, and we'll make a chunk of change, so let's just get rid of him that way..."

 

This link sheds light on quite how murky common land law is:

 

https://www.oss.org.uk/vehicular-access-across-common-land-and-town-or-village-greens/ 

 

Are there any creative geniuses out there who could help me crack this? Big bounty fee for the person(s) who can!!

 

[Declan52]

Could you use something like this to drive on. It's as temp as they come.

https://www.grassmats.co.uk/product/grass-protection-mesh/

[Mr Punter]

Is there no way you could widen the existing access?  I think a new access over common land is a no-no.

[harry_angel]

Just now, Declan52 said:

Could you use something like this to drive on. It's as temp as they come.

https://www.grassmats.co.uk/product/grass-protection-mesh/

 

That is, as you said, the very definition of temporary and moveable...many thanks.

[harry_angel]

Just now, Mr Punter said:

Is there no way you could widen the existing access?  I think a new access over common land is a no-no.

 

Short of purchasing one of the neighbouring properties (haven't ruled this out but the economics are really tough), no, this is impossible. 

 

Current access is totally boxed in by other properties...

[Jeremy Harris]

I believe that the general access rules that apply to common land are that you can legally cross it on foot or horseback, but not with any motorised vehicle.  Actually driving across it may be the sticking point, rather than creating a means to do so, as it may need a change in the designation of the land to make vehicular access lawful.

 

Not sure if there's an easy way around this, but there may be a way to establish a right of vehicular access by just doing it, without any objections being lodged, for a period of time.  It's probably a complicated bit of law, though, so might be well worth trying to get some advice as to whether this may work or not.

[ProDave]

A relative pulled out of the purchase of a house once, because it was built behind another house, and the only access to it was over a bridleway.  The solicitor pointed out he could walk to the house or ride a horse to the house, but he had no legal right to drive a car or other vehicle to the house, even though the present owners were doing that.

 

If you want this access once in a blue moon to get something big in, I would just do it. But for regular access in a car I see no option but keep using the existing legal access.

[harry_angel]

10 minutes ago, Jeremy Harris said:

I believe that the general access rules that apply to common land are that you can legally cross it on foot or horseback, but not with any motorised vehicle.  Actually driving across it may be the sticking point, rather than creating a means to do so, as it may need a change in the designation of the land to make vehicular access lawful.

 

Not sure if there's an easy way around this, but there may be a way to establish a right of vehicular access by just doing it, without any objections being lodged, for a period of time.  It's probably a complicated bit of law, though, so might be well worth trying to get some advice as to whether this may work or not.

 

Thanks Jeremy.

 

My loose understanding is that if you can squat on common land for 10 years (without objection) then you have a legal right to claim it, though that in itself is clearly a legal process likely riddled with difficulties.

 

[scottishjohn]

21 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

 

Short of purchasing one of the neighbouring properties (haven't ruled this out but the economics are really tough), no, this is impossible. 

 

Current access is totally boxed in by other properties...

that I feel is your only real solution  in the long term 

do any of the other properties use it ?

who maintains  it ?

is there a deal with them to widen if you make it a proper road and they have no maintainence costs--

Edited May 6, 2020 by scottishjohn

[Jeremy Harris]

I strongly suspect that the law around this may be a bit of a minefield.  I very briefly got involved with the law of adverse possession a few years ago, when a plot we were looking to buy turned out to be a lot smaller on the ground than it was on the title plan.  It turned out that the neighbour had moved his fence over the years, and taken around a 30m wide strip from the side of the plot, without anyone noticing.  The chap had also re-routed a public footpath as he'd done this.  After a few weeks of discussions with the vendors, the neighbour, the enforcement officer and our solicitors, we pulled out of the purchase, as it seemed probable that the neighbour had acquired the land through adverse possession, and without that strip of land access to the plot was going to be really restricted.

[harry_angel]

@scottishjohn it's not really like that tbh. Bit tricky to describe. There is an existing vehicular access/bridleway which leads to a neighbouring property but even with this in play we still require the cut-across. 

 

@Jeremy Harris yep, minefield is probably an understatement. I do believe however that - as your example perfectly illustrates - there is a lot of scope to play tennis with it. As yer man did in your example, he basically pinged the ball back to the council, the homeowner and everybody else and said: "you deal with it". And clearly everyone thought life was too short and declined to deal with it. Q - do you know how long ago prior to your involvement he'd claimed to have moved the fence? 

 

This section of the article above is quite interesting:

 

Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1711: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021711.htm.) were introduced to resolve the problems Hanning had created for property owners. The provisions had effect where a vehicular right of access to premises could have been claimed by prescription but for the judgment in the Hanning case. The regulations set appropriate levels of payment to the landowner for statutory easements giving a right of way to premises for vehicles, where the landowner was either unwilling voluntarily to grant an easement, or seeking excessive compensation in return for doing so. The compensation rates were in the range of 0.25% - 2% of the value of the property, depending on its age. This compared with sums of between 6%–10%, which some landowners had been demanding previously.

[harry_angel]

Also...

 

Allowing vehicles on common land

It’s an offence to drive a vehicle onto common land unless:

• the driver intends to park it within 15 yards of a public road
• the driver has permission from the landowner

In some circumstances, people who have to drive across a common to access their property may have a right to do so.

Find out more about vehicle access to property over common land.

[Jeremy Harris]

10 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

 

@Jeremy Harris yep, minefield is probably an understatement. I do believe however that - as your example perfectly illustrates - there is a lot of scope to play tennis with it. As yer man did in your example, he basically pinged the ball back to the council, the homeowner and everybody else and said: "you deal with it". And clearly everyone thought life was too short and declined to deal with it. Q - do you know how long ago prior to your involvement he'd claimed to have moved the fence? 

 

 

The vendor had bought the land about 8 years earlier, and hadn't spotted that it didn't match the title plan, until we pointed it out (I only discovered it when I went over there to do a rough survey with a tape to see how we could run access to the plot).  Another neighbour thought that the shift of the boundary and footpath had happened about 12 years earlier, when a new vegetable garden was dug on the "borrowed" land, but there was no hard evidence that this was an accurate date.  The enforcement and rights of way officers were of the view that there were now two public footpaths across the land, one in the original position (which would run through the large vegetable garden) and one in the new position that had acquired rights just because it had been in use for years.

[scottishjohn]

ilooked ta the link you provided 

I see no simple or cdheap opton  and no certainty if you sp[ent mega legal expenses you would get it  anyway

 

 

you say you NEED to cross cut -- 

why would widening the exsisting  access not suffice?

its not going to be cheap what ever you do .if indeed there is any other way 

could  you buy one of the houses --alter the lane -then sell it again with reduced land?

If you expect the local authority to just change its mind then its going to need a lot pressure from councillors to do that-

bottom line is how much are you willing to spend to sort this problem --

maybe a they will grant you a temporary access ,if it was for doing building work

-but a new permanent access --not a prayer unless you going ot give them a huge payment and have the councillors on your side --same as "tesco " do when they fail planning - by building asomething new for the local area

[Ferdinand]

Suspect that on this one you will not do well with the common land, and that the remedy is likely to be widening your access by

 

a - Stuffing your neighbour's mouth with gold. That will be slightly expensive.

b - A generous land swap if they need more garden.

c - Flipping the property, which will cost you are least 3% for Stamp Duty if you can't get a low price - or you could potentially turn it into a rental.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Ferdinand

[harry_angel]

@scottishjohn you can't widen the existing access because there are literally houses right in the way. There's no land to purchase, to widen. Only buildings. It's a very odd set up, trust me.

 

The only solutions are: a) buy the neighbouring property (but this is the most expensive route and delivers an only slightly improved access) or b) come in across common land (delivers far superior access at a theoretically minute percentage of the cost.)

 

 

[bassanclan]

I doubt it will help, but a Google satellite view or block plan etc might at least give us an idea of what we're talking about

[Roundtuit]

I tried to get vehicular access over about 3m council owned common land about 15 years ago without success. The council refused point blank as it risked setting a precedent.  Maybe try for temporary access while you build, as a starting point?

[harry_angel]

@bassanclan would prefer not to share this as a) I don't think it'll unlock the winning idea and b) we don't know who watches these forums!

 

1 minute ago, Roundtuit said:

I tried to get vehicular access over about 3m council owned common land about 15 years ago without success. The council refused point blank as it risked setting a precedent.  Maybe try for temporary access while you build, as a starting point?

 

Yup they live in mortal fear of that, don't they? Which is why I'm trying to box them in to a bit of a corner...somehow.