Tweet
Three of four neighbouring properties own sections of a former school playground. No.1, 2 & 3 were created in a deed of partition of the former school hall back in 1982 The fourth neighbour owns the former headmasters house and a former paddock behind the other 3 properties. The playground has become a driveway with registered right of way for No. 2 & 3 since 1982 and a reserved right of way for The Old School (Headmsters) House which was created in 1979 but the property only registered a year or two ago upon it's 1st subsequent sale.
The former owner of the Headmasters House and our predecessors apparently agreed that he be allowed to demolish sections of a party wall, move back 3 or 4 feet and build a fence and gate (approximately 60 feet in length). The remains of the party wall footings and pillars at each end are clearly still visible. The solicitor responsible for the deed of partition inserted a phrase that the party wall between the paddock and other 3 properties "is forever usable and maintainable"
Original easement though not expressly limited to such purposes appears to have been primarily intended for access to / maintenance of the shared drains as the party boundary wall prevented any access through into the paddock & though each party is given the right to breach the wall if necessary for maintenance purposes it is to be reinstated on completion..
Under the agreement which appears to have been verbally made numbers 1,2 & 3 have gained 3 or 4 feet of extra parking / turning room, the other neighbour access into his paddock. Current neighbours at 1 2 & 3 have never had an issue with the new neighbour continuing with the arrangement his predecessor enjoyed - ie personal car accessing personal garage - though it has not actually been used as such by choice.
New neighbour has decided that he wishes to build a physiotherapy treatment room and create a commercial business running access across our drive. All 3 neighbours have objected to this and are considering reinstating the boundary wall to prevent such use.
Neighbour claims I am delusional if I think I can do so. We have had some provisional opinion(s) between the 3 neighbours and currently await a written reply from a solicitor the three of us have visited - comments being utterly at odds with what I considered the ill considered advice our 4th neighbour appears to have received from another firm (eg that he would talk only to no.1 based upon the 1979 deed put before him but failing to consider the subsequent partition and legal right of way granted to no.2 & 3 which his business proposal interferes with, not considering change of use from residential to commercial as relevant etc)
Any thoughts / comments / case law on reinstating the party wall / legal boundary, over burdening of easements etc please?
The former owner of the Headmasters House and our predecessors apparently agreed that he be allowed to demolish sections of a party wall, move back 3 or 4 feet and build a fence and gate (approximately 60 feet in length). The remains of the party wall footings and pillars at each end are clearly still visible. The solicitor responsible for the deed of partition inserted a phrase that the party wall between the paddock and other 3 properties "is forever usable and maintainable"
Original easement though not expressly limited to such purposes appears to have been primarily intended for access to / maintenance of the shared drains as the party boundary wall prevented any access through into the paddock & though each party is given the right to breach the wall if necessary for maintenance purposes it is to be reinstated on completion..
Under the agreement which appears to have been verbally made numbers 1,2 & 3 have gained 3 or 4 feet of extra parking / turning room, the other neighbour access into his paddock. Current neighbours at 1 2 & 3 have never had an issue with the new neighbour continuing with the arrangement his predecessor enjoyed - ie personal car accessing personal garage - though it has not actually been used as such by choice.
New neighbour has decided that he wishes to build a physiotherapy treatment room and create a commercial business running access across our drive. All 3 neighbours have objected to this and are considering reinstating the boundary wall to prevent such use.
Neighbour claims I am delusional if I think I can do so. We have had some provisional opinion(s) between the 3 neighbours and currently await a written reply from a solicitor the three of us have visited - comments being utterly at odds with what I considered the ill considered advice our 4th neighbour appears to have received from another firm (eg that he would talk only to no.1 based upon the 1979 deed put before him but failing to consider the subsequent partition and legal right of way granted to no.2 & 3 which his business proposal interferes with, not considering change of use from residential to commercial as relevant etc)
Any thoughts / comments / case law on reinstating the party wall / legal boundary, over burdening of easements etc please?