Private Roads, a right of way exists by default?

chuckcork

Haven't seen this issue discussed elsewhere, so I'm wondering what the case woudl be if any of the lawyer types here could answer.

I went through a Private Road in Weybridge this morning, trying to work out the final details of a ride to work, and on the way back did it as well. Had a snotty housewife type stop by the side of the road in her car at one point and try and talk to me (fat chance with me moving at 20mph), but it did make me wonder, is there a presumed right of way through "Private Roads"?

The road links one road with another, though it has a locked gate section which motor vehicles can't pass through. While it does have the usual Private Road signs and such notifying that you're not to enter unless you have business there, what legal effect do they have?

There is nothing to stop anyone from walking or cycling through there, and the road looks like its been in existence for quite some time, so I'd guess a Right fo Way could easily have come about through use? There is practically no way they could completely close the street to peds and bikes so its a Highway, privately owned or not, and a presumed Right of Way exists?

I'd like to know in case I am accosted by said snotty residents in future.

jonginge

As far as I understand it (IANAL) there is no right of way by default. It can be argued (through the Right to Roam legislation) that it is a defacto right of way if it has been used as such for longer than a given length of time (20 years I think) without there being a warning that you are entering private land, eg by a 'private road' or 'no public right of way' sign etc. Sounds like a private road to me.

roger_merriman

one tresspass is hardly a sharp tooth law, if it says private road that probably is enough i'm not sure that land has to legally have a boundry.

so yes unless any one knows better they can should "get off my land!" but that is about all they can do. yes your not suposed to be there.

teulk

Tbh if i came across a gate that had a sign that said "PRIVATE ROAD" or "PRIVATE PROPERTY" then i just simply wouldnt got that way. if some just came along and walked thru your front gate and out thru your back gate im sure you wouldnt be too happy about it. You could however try and find who owns the road and ask their permission to use it.

alfablue

The relevance of "Private" in private road is that it is maintained by individuals other than the local authority. Rights of way may exist through use especially if it links one road to another. The snotty housewife may well have no real idea about the legal status of the road and your right (or not) to access it. Just keep cycling fast 8)

CiB

The common them in the RLJ args is that it gives non-cyclists another reason to hate us even though we're ostensibly doing nothing wrong and not really hurting anyone. In the same way so is riding yer bike down a private road, ignoring the rights of the occupants of said road to enjoy their property without some cyclist taking it upon himself to ignore any signs proclaiming privacy as it 'saves a bit of time'. So does RLJing, but by consensus on here at least, that doesn't justify it. Respect other people's property as you would expect yours to be respected. If it says Keep Out, keep out.

Wooliferkins

This sort of makes it clear, while this mudies the waters. Your local CTC right of way officer can probably clarify the specific case or Surrey County Council

biondino

Hmm. My personal approach would be that I am doing no harm to anyone by nipping through a private road on the way somewhere and if some nimby wants to shout at me then let them. I appreciate this isn't necessarily how the law works (though none of the links above seem to prove that private roads imply a legal impediment to trespass) but, you know, life's too short to worry about indulging snobs.

(I guess, however, it would be different if I then had an accident on a private road, perhaps hitting a pothole. Wouldn't want to get into the legalities of that)

lost_in_thought

Well, consider for a second that you're on someone's property. Just because it's paved and goes from point a to point b doesn't mean that it's open for public use: how would you feel about strangers cycling on your drive?

Find out who owns it, and drop them a line asking for permission to use it.

biondino

It's a road! I agree, if it were, say the road to one dwelling, and a cul de sac, then it could be considered a driveway. But everyone else seems to manage just fine with other people using the roads near their house to get from A to B, and me on a bike ain't going to make a jot of difference to any aspect of their lives. If it's a toss-up between making my journey easier (rather than cordoning off a perfectly useful access route) and annoying someone who has a bizarre hatred of having to watch a cyclist go past for all of 5 seconds, then my needs win.

Now, if a whole stream of cars was using it all the time, with the noise, fumes and people stuck in traffic jams staring through your front windows, I can see how that'd be annoying.

(Yes, I see the hypocrisy in my post considering how I feel about, say, RLJers. But while RLJing can be dangerous, and is illegal for a very good reason, a private road is purely the function of the selfishness of its inhabitants.)

chuckcork

Its not a Private Road in the sense that it goes to 1 house, its a private road in the sense of a road into a development, that has never been adopted by Surrey CC.

In that sense it isn't owned by a particular owner, if it was then I would treat it as a private driveway and not go down it.

Just thought I should make that clear.

lost_in_thought

Obviously the driveway was a bad example!

If it's a private road, then by its essence it is not public property, and therefore someone, or several entities, own(s) it.

Irrespective of whether it makes life easier to use it, regardless of where it goes to and from, or how many houses lead off it, you shouldn't be there without permission unless some other arrangement exists.

EDIT: Having read chuckcork's post, in this instance it seems likely that those who need to use the development can use it for access. Again, I'd ask the landowner(s), it's theirs, they can decide that people can't use it unless they're wearing pink if they like.

biondino

lost_in_thought wrote:

Obviously the driveway was a bad example!

If it's a private road, then by its essence it is not public property, and therefore someone, or several entities, own(s) it.

Irrespective of whether it makes life easier to use it, regardless of where it goes to and from, or how many houses lead off it, you shouldn't be there without permission unless some other arrangement exists.

Yes, I accept this. However, I will use it anyway because it makes my life easier at no cost to anyone else (retired colonels who turn puce with apoplexy and have a stroke because I am riding 20 feet away from their aspidistras don't count). Sorry, private road inhabitants, chalk me up with the asylum seeking rapists and pinko benefits abusers on your hate list

lost_in_thought

biondino wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Obviously the driveway was a bad example!

If it's a private road, then by its essence it is not public property, and therefore someone, or several entities, own(s) it.

Irrespective of whether it makes life easier to use it, regardless of where it goes to and from, or how many houses lead off it, you shouldn't be there without permission unless some other arrangement exists.

Yes, I accept this. However, I will use it anyway because it makes my life easier at no cost to anyone else (retired colonels who turn puce with apoplexy and have a stroke because I am riding 20 feet away from their aspidistras don't count). Sorry, private road inhabitants, chalk me up with the asylum seeking rapists and pinko benefits abusers on your hate list

Bloody communists.

*gets gun*

If I find you on moi laaaaaaand, Blondie, I will set the dogs on you.

alfablue

As Chuckcork says, it is only private in the sense that it isn't adopted by the local authority, and it's upkeep is the responsibility of other individuals/companies. If there is access (i.e. no gate across the path) then it is okay to use it. If the owners do not wish the public to have access they need to gate it. An open access is an invitation to use it.

il_principe

lost_in_thought wrote:

Bloody communists.

*gets gun*

If I find you on moi laaaaaaand, Blondie, I will set the dogs on you.[/quote]

What's that Olivia? *mutters Quite right, string the blaggard up. Shootings to good for his type.

Jay dubbleU

chuckcork wrote:

Its not a Private Road in the sense that it goes to 1 house, its a private road in the sense of a road into a development, that has never been adopted by Surrey CC.

In that sense it isn't owned by a particular owner, if it was then I would treat it as a private driveway and not go down it.

Just thought I should make that clear.

If its a private road that has not been adopted by the LA then either it still belongs to the developer of the estate or collectively to the householders who will have taken on the responsibility of maintaining the road - if it is a recent development normally it takes around 2 years for a road to be adopted by the LA - being a private road does not give the owner the right to stop anyone from using it unless it is gated - at the same time there is no implication that it is a ROW

chuckcork

There is a gate but only at the point that it stops the road from being used as a rat run for vehicles into a connecting street. There are otherwise absolutely no restrictions on accessing the development from either of the other 2 roads that afford access into the development, other than the signs saying private road & oiks please stay out.

To clear things up from a definitive legal point of view, I've found Surrey CC have a "query us" section on their website (hadn't found it before I did my original post), so I've sent off a query about said development. Be interesting to see the response, assuming I get one!

In the meantime I'll try not to wear out the lordships tarmac too much or offend their Volvo driving ladyships.

Hopefully of course by merely cycling through I've knocked at least 10 grand off the property values :P

Jay dubbleU

If there is a gate it only needs to be closed once a year to prevent the road from becoming a ROW - there should also be a notice stating that it is not part of the public highway

chuckcork

Jay dubbleU wrote:

If there is a gate it only needs to be closed once a year to prevent the road from becoming a ROW - there should also be a notice stating that it is not part of the public highway

The gate is at one of 3 possible entry points into the development, as noted it is only a vehicle gate and does not prevent pedestrians or cycles from passing either side, indeed there is a bollarded gap at the end of the kind provided to allow cycles to pass by the gate without having to go onto the footpath to do so.

roger_merriman

i think you'll find the gate or no gate is non starter companies such as railtrack etc have plenty of ungated bridges etc with a small notice that says there is no 'right' of way over here. ie we might at some point chose to remove it.

alfablue

Jay dubbleU wrote:

If there is a gate it only needs to be closed once a year to prevent the road from becoming a ROW - there should also be a notice stating that it is not part of the public highway

That's right, but whilst it is open it is an "easement" of the restriction so it is okay to pass through.

alfablue

roger merriman wrote:

i think you'll find the gate or no gate is non starter companies such as railtrack etc have plenty of ungated bridges etc with a small notice that says there is no 'right' of way over here. ie we might at some point chose to remove it.

The point is, should they close it we cannot then protest and make a claim that it is a right of way; whilst it is open we may use it.

itboffin

It's a total maze of private roads and gated unmapped paths around these parts, very very difficult to know which you can and can't use but generally if i'm unsure I give it a miss, my family are farmers and have a 'public' right of way right through the middle of the farm leading to a heavily secured military airfield at the top of the farm, we often see ramblers and other odd types disappearing up the lane only to return an hour later no doubt annoyed at the dead end

We of course have to regularly fix the fences and close or even replace gates (at our own cost) and pick up mountains of rubbish left behind.

We love right to roam :roll:

CiB

Replace 'snob' and 'puce-faced retired colonel' with 'little old lady who wishes she could enjoy her retirement and just wishes quietly that younger people could respect a sign that says Private Road'. What is it with having done reasonably well for yourself over this short time that we're here to make a decent fist of things, that it leaves one open to dismissive shouts of 'snob' etc? I'd rather live in an environment peopled by civilised decent types who can speak decent English, who always have a Good Morning ready when we pass, who know how to hold a fork and don't hold their knife like a pen blah blah blah rather than living on an estate full of chavvy tw@ts whose idea of tidying up is to chuck their KFC wrappers under the Corsa before they drive off, exposing their scummy rubbish that so accurately reflects their own personas. Grrr, and silmutaneously, ho hum.

Beeblebrox

I'm not sure I've completely followed this thread - do we know whether it's privately maintained or privately constructed? Does this road turn up on an OS map? If not it's never been accepted as a public right of way.

alfablue

It doesn't need to be a right of way to be able to pass along an open road between two other roads, if it is open (not gated) then you can pass. The owners may be able to close the route when they wish with a barrier as long as it is not a right of way, which would require that it is open at all times.

nwallace

A road being on an OS map does not confirm that it is a public right of way only that it exists.

It's possible for the pavement providing a safe area for pedestrians to traverse the public highway to be unadopted and therefore not the councils problem.

You occasionally see pavement studs stating "This pavement is not dedicated to the public" there is one in Bowness-On-Windermere.

always_tyred

itboffin wrote:

We love right to roam :roll:

You would if you had it.

Chalk another one up for Scotland.

Jay dubbleU

Always Tyred wrote:

itboffin wrote:

We love right to roam :roll:

You would if you had it.

Chalk another one up for Scotland.

Yes indeed !