Victorian terrace back passageway demolished in conservation area

[arborlad]

Victorian terrace back passageway demolished in conservation area – ROW issues
• Two high walls – a passageway - were/was demolished in a conservation area without consent (some time ago – not sure exactly when – but prior to 2006)

Prior to 2006 = 13+ years ago

Thanks - perhaps Morgan Sweet was right

It is a pleasure to read the posts from Rosenberg since they are all written with a command of the English language. May I suggest some of the problems he is experiencing with one particular forum contributor is due to the latter's probable ability to read written English but inability to comprehend the written English language. This clear lack of comprehension leads to inaccurate assumptions.

[arborlad]

If the walls needed repairs then the deeds Indicate that the responsibility would have been between the owners of both of the lands adjacent to the wall....it looks like you can't locate one of them, and the other dismantled the wall. I think you should consider if you are wasting your time on that approach.

If the walls that were demolished needed repairs then all those houses mentioned in our deeds could, I would have thought, been called upon for a contribution to the cost. However, my question really was does the passage include the walls?! This would clear up the question as to whether the neighbours owned the walls or not. (They still should not have demolished them in a conservation area without consent, I think).

The neighbour dismantled both walls. (i) The wall that had originally been at the end of their garden, and (ii) the wall the other side of the passage that was the ‘boundary’ of the extra piece of land they purchased. By knocking down these two passageway walls they united all the land they owned. Our ROW is now through this united land where the ‘passage’ once was …

I'm not sure how necessary it is to know who owns/owned the walls? We are tackling this as a breach of planning control issue. I realise our chances are slim - but if we don't try we won't know.

Unless there is something we are unaware of, the neighbour owned both walls and the land they occupied. The walls will have originally been built to define and secure the land of its owner and to prevent trespass by anyone using the passage, not to give a sense of security to any of the users

As both of you have a legal right to use the land, neither of you can be the owners and your rights to use the land will be equal - along with any other legal users.

The rear access is a valuable property right and should be defended accordingly.

How wide was the passage and what was the surface before any works took place, any gates in the walls?..................what is the situation now?

[mr sheen]

OP has a right of way that has been acknowledged and is not subject to substantial interference. Ownership of the land is irrelevant to OP. Only the owner of the passage land is likely to be successful in any action.

[maybenot]

I said I would post an update.

We have had a response from the Enforcement Team. They apparently took legal advice and were told that consent was required for the demolition of walls in a conservation area and that this demolition was not immune from enforcement action.

However, the LA is not going to take any action because in their opinion the demolition took place such a 'long time ago'. This seems illogical to me because there are no time limits with regard to conservation areas .... Neither has the Enforcement Team followed the guidelines of their own enforcement policy as far as I can see.

Anyway thank you very much to all those who troubled to respond.

[arborlad]

I said I would post an update.

We have had a response from the Enforcement Team. They apparently took legal advice and were told that consent was required for the demolition of walls in a conservation area and that this demolition was not immune from enforcement action.

However, the LA is not going to take any action because in their opinion the demolition took place such a 'long time ago'. This seems illogical to me because there are no time limits with regard to conservation areas .... Neither has the Enforcement Team followed the guidelines of their own enforcement policy as far as I can see.

Anyway thank you very much to all those who troubled to respond.

What do you want to achieve here?

I usually lose interest when questions go unanswered.............

[maybenot]

We wanted to achieve the rebuilding of the walls.
The only hope (we could see) was due to the protection of being in a Conservation Area.
Even if there were other 'civil' routes there is the question of ownership - and very likely a cost we could not bear.
So this was ultimately in the hands of the Enforcement Team - and we notified them about the breach of planning consent.
I came on Garden Law in case anyone had any suggestions / arguments / 'case studies' that might be cited as a precedent - or any other advice / comments that might help us generally. (All gratefully received).
We then awaited the Enforcement Team response
I had said I would update the forum on what had happened - which I have done (ie given the Enforcement Team response)
I have no further questions for the forum
(We have responded to the Enforcement Team because I cannot see that they have followed their own Enforcement guidance. But I am not expecting any change of position).

[maybenot]

How wide was the passage and what was the surface before any works took place, any gates in the walls?..................what is the situation now?

Sorry I didn't mean to be rude ...
Passageway running across the back was / is 3 feet wide
Front to back passageway is 4 feet wide
Current surfaces a bit of a mix
Surface of bit where the walls have gone matches the patio into which it has been incorporated
A gate is at our end (for our use only - no one has access or ROW across our garden)
Neighbours have put a gate at their end (where previously there would not have been a gate). They have a padlock on it which makes operating the catch a bit difficult but it is not locked (I think that argument was had with our predecessors).

We have access that is not a problem. But you have to feel quite 'thick-skinned' to use it. If the walls were there none of this would be an issue - we could come and go as we pleased.
They had a view on the access (ie that they allowed it as a favour) - and we did not dispute it (simple life) until we had to discuss (as a courtesy) our need for access for a building job. Then (when they were refusing) I had to point out that actually we had a ROW and they were not in a position to refuse. (In fact we had tried to arrange it so that we would have to use the ROW as little as possible - if at all).

So that's the situation. We are disappointed in the Enforcement Team's response - from our experience their decisions seem somewhat arbitrary.

Thanks again to all those who have responded.