# Shared gate with neighbour



## Spear (28 Jan 2014)

Our neighbour wants to put up a shared gate in the alley between our two semi-ds. The alley is about 1.5m wide.  We each own half of the alley, with (I presume) the title divide running half-way down, with no visible border.

The neighbours want to put this gate near the front of both houses and leave existing side gates towards the rear.  The reason is to make it more difficult burglars to enter through the side.  The construction would require drilling/fixing to the walls of both houses.  They are happy to cover the costs.  We are not averse to contributing to the costs, but are more concerned at this point about the design of the gate, construction methods and moreso the legal implications.  

In relation to this post, I'm wondering what implications from a legal perspective there would be if we allowed them to proceed or if we jointly progressed with them?  

Initial topics of concern are:
- ownership;
- liability;
- maintenance responsibility;
- planning guidelines;
- implications if planning guidelines not followed;
- form of agreement
- implications for future house sale (our house)
- implications for future house sale (their house)
- responsibilities of future owners

Feedback on the above would be welcome.


----------



## Bronte (28 Jan 2014)

I always think its better not to fall out with neighbours.  If you're happy for the gate to go up, and it seems you do, then there shouldn't be a problem.  But if it were me, I'd prefer to pay half and agree that the gate is jointly owned and maintened.  

One of my neighbours who was there before me decided the boundry hedge was his, and duly used to sneak into my garden when I was out to cut it on my side.  He never said a word to me, and let the cuttings for me to deal with which I did and was very happy he cut the hedge.  

People can get funny about who owns what.


----------



## Deas (28 Jan 2014)

Why not build a structure with two sets of gates and a pillar in the middle?  Then you will each retain responsibility for your own side removing many of your concerns above.


----------



## Spear (28 Jan 2014)

Deas said:


> Why not build a structure with two sets of gates and a pillar in the middle? Then you will each retain responsibility for your own side removing many of your concerns above.


 
That will be seriously considered, and I think it a good option, but I don't think there is enough space.


----------



## QED (28 Jan 2014)

You're over-thinking this one! 

It's only a gate and it will add to security of both of the houses. You won't end up bankrupt, or in jail, or unable to sell your house because of this gate. 

So long as it's not an ugly or dangerous gate - I can't see why you would not proceed.


----------



## Bronte (28 Jan 2014)

I agree with QED on the overthinking.


----------



## Spear (29 Jan 2014)

Thanks for responses.  I accept the point of 'overthinking' on the ownership/ liability issues.

However, if the gate or structure is erected which is not in compliance with planning laws, is there any chance the authorities could take a claim against us, if the other neighbour paid 100% of costs?

If we went 50/50, then it would be conditional on adhering to planning, so my question relates to the case where the neighbour went ahead on their own.

I do believe the neighbour is thinking of going above the 2m to perhaps 3m and does not seem to be concerned about planning.  I wouldn't want to object - just want to make sure the planning authorities don't fine us.


----------



## twofor1 (29 Jan 2014)

Spear said:


> I do believe the neighbour is thinking of going above the 2m to perhaps 3m and does not seem to be concerned about planning.



If this gate needs planning permission and this does not concern your neighbour, then I would object and not let this project go ahead as this planning requirement would concern me.





Spear said:


> so my question relates to the case where the neighbour went ahead on their own.



He can’t erect a gate on your property without your permission, if he does he is wildly out of order.


----------



## Spear (30 Jan 2014)

I think he is preparing to proceed without planning permission. I can see his point, as planning is required for anything over 2m which isn't very high from a security point of view. He doesn't want to risk/wait for planning to come through, as they were burgled recently and quite jumpy.

I actually think from a planning point of view I am not interested in objecting to something that is (for example) 3m high. However, even though he would pay for the gate, I do not understand the implications of breaching planning for a shared gate. 

There are penalties etc. associated with violating planning. But would those penalties only apply to him, as he has built the thing? But given that it is built on my property without my objection does that then mean I would potentially be liable for planning penalties?


----------



## Spear (4 Feb 2014)

As feared, the neighbour has proceeded with erecting a high 3.5m wooden wall (with door) without consulting me nor receiving planning permission (he hasn't applied for planning either and doesn't look like he will).

I haven't agreed to it, but at the same time did not go out of my way to physically stop him.  I think it is both aesthetically way off and also a potential security/safety hazard.  My views re aesthetics and safety/security are consistent with the vast majority of those who have seen it to date.

I do not want to object to it at this stage from a planning point of view nor do I want to take it down myself.  I'd prefer to work with the neighbour towards agreeing a longer term alternative, which he seems open to if we can suggest a better alternative design.

At the risk of 'over-thinking this one', what are the implications for breach of planning for (a) my neighbour and (b) me?


----------



## diver (4 Feb 2014)

It seems simple to me:

 Your neighbour has erected a structure on both his property and your property without the required planning permission. You didn't object to this.

 He is liable for any consequences relating to the unplanned structure on his side of the boundry.

 As you didn't object to the construction of this 3.5m high wooden wall, you are most probably equally liable for any breach in planning law even though you didn't erect the structure, as this structure is also on your side of the boundry.

 If it were me, I'd want all structures on or around my property to be fully compliant with planning laws. What if you wanted to sell? An unplanned structure could hold up a sale.

 I can't understand why you both haven't come to a mutually compatible arrangement? Surely, would it not have been best to engage with him from the outset instead of now finding yourself in this situation?


----------



## Spear (4 Feb 2014)

diver said:


> I can't understand why you both haven't come to a mutually compatible arrangement? Surely, would it not have been best to engage with him from the outset instead of now finding yourself in this situation?



We tried to engage him to come to an agreement, but he wouldn't discuss, as he sees this as an immediate interim arrangement and won't engage in discussions on it nor enter the planning process as he is more concerned about immediately protecting his property.  He says that he will consider other options in the longer term, but is nervous in the short term.  Money seems to be no object to him, so he felt he just needed to get something done immediately.  (his wife is very upset over the break-in).  Either way, short term or long term, he doesn't seem too interested in the planning process.


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2014)

Spear said:


> Either way, short term or long term, he doesn't seem too interested in the planning process.


 
And the likelyhood is nothing will happen on this score, unless it's blocking off someone else's property or interefering with someone else, or someone complains.  And when enough time passes it won't have to be taken down.  Do you really think the planning authorities are going around checking on things like this.  They cannot keep up with the real coyboys.  

It's probably exempt from planning in any case as it doesn't sound like anything structural to me.  If everybody is ok about it now and the wife next door feels safer happy days.  No need to think about it any more.


----------



## Gerry Canning (5 Feb 2014)

Spear. Burglaries have a terrible effect on peoples feeling of security, your neighbours wife seems in a bad way.
Since it is timber ,it is by nature temporary and probably puts her mind at rest.

At worst you could remove it in the future if need be eg if selling.
I just cannot see the Council bothering.
Without the 3 metres I can see burglars returning ?

You will get used to it.


----------



## SparkRite (5 Feb 2014)

Bronte said:


> And the likelyhood is nothing will happen on this score, unless it's blocking off someone else's property or interefering with someone else, or someone complains.  And when enough time passes it won't have to be taken down. * Do you really think the planning authorities are going around checking on things like this*.  They cannot keep up with the real coyboys.
> 
> It's probably exempt from planning in any case as it doesn't sound like anything structural to me.  If everybody is ok about it now and the wife next door feels safer happy days.  No need to think about it any more.



+1 (in fact planning permission would be the furthest thing from my mind, following a burglary so close to home)

Unless this gate is causing you problems in some other way, then relax and enjoy the extra security.

There are more important thing to worry about.


----------



## DirectDevil (13 Feb 2014)

The first thing that you should do is to check your *actual* rights and obligations as distinct from what has been assumed.

Although not quite the same as your situation we had a shared/common driveway between our neighbours and ourselves.

Each neighbour had legal ownership of their side of the drive to the middle of it. 

However, each neighbour was also obliged to grant right of passage to the other over the entire width of the drive i.e. so that we could drive our cars to the garages at the back of the houses. This was a permanent right created at the outset of the building of the houses.

You should check your title documents to see what rights and obligations, if any, were created in relation to the passageway.

If you do not object to what has been done you are effectively agreeing to it and assuming the responsibilities that go with it. 

Suppose the structure is not maintained, your neighbour moves and the post man is injured when it falls on him because it is defective. Your insurance company will pay for that.

BTW an anonymous letter to the planning control section of your local authority about an unauthorised development/structure can produce wonders and put manners on people.

Generally, I think that your neighbour's conduct was presumptive and may well be an act of trespass.

Finally, I endorse diver's views about the matters he has raised.


----------

