Easement and boundary query

[Wellingtonreno]

Just after a bit of advice on a property that I purchased recently.

It is on a decent size plot but shares part of the driveway with another 2 properties (next door was subdivided 20 years ago and a 2nd house built).

Unfortunately when they subdivided the land they didn't account for people owning cars and only allowed one car space for the one property and a garage for the other.

The garage for the 2nd property is built on the boundary so there no parking directly in front of the house. Between the two properties they have 4 vehicles.

I get on fine with the tenants for both properties but they rely on me having my driveway (which is not part of the shared driveway) for turning their cars around in.

Also one of the neighbours welcomed us when we first moved in but mentioned that all 3 houses "share" the driveway and would it be okay to park his car occasionally on my driveway where I have room for 2 cars. (I only own 1 vehicle). It happens more often than not these days and I find it a pain when I have to get visitors to park on the road when his 2nd car is parked on my drive.

As the area looks a bit like a car park with one of their cars permanently off the road and looking a bit tatty, I want to put up a fence and maybe some small trees to seperate my property from their parking area but I know it will cause them issues with parking and turning around in the future. (I'm well within my rights by the way - already checked it out).

I don't want to look like an inconsiderate neighbour but also want to have my driveway looking good and get it resurfaced as part of ongoing renovations.

How should I approach the problem? Anyone else had similar problems in the past?

I've a feeling it will look like I'm being difficult if I erect something after the driveway has been in the same layout for the last 20 years.

[John the builder]

you need good legal advice on what you own and what is common property that you share

[Wayne]

If you are legally in the right then the only thing you can do if discuss the issue with the neighbours.
After that, if they don't agree with you, whatever you do will cause friction.
Either accept the friction or sell and move on.
Not a lot of other options that I can see.
Hopefully the neighbours will see your point and be happy but ...

[artemis]

You could tell the neighbour more or less permanently parking the tatty car that it was not the original arrangement and your visitors end up with nowhere to park. So very apologetically you would like to end the arrangement.

And make sure any new tenants know the space is not available to them.

Maybe you could say you are OK with turning cars ....

[Wellingtonreno]

Yeah that was sort of what I was thinking. Just a bit bummed that they didn't design the subdivision very well and so the un-subdivided section next door (me) has to compensate for their lack of parking and space to turn around. Guess I will see what the neighbours think and hope they are agreeable. As a side note, I know that new properties built these days have to provide 2 offroad car spaces. Any ideas what the rules were back in the early nineties?

[north shore]

Depended on the council, In our case on the north shore it also depended on what part of the north shore, we had a place in Totaravale but it came under the Takapuna rules, we had to have 2 parks per unit when crossleasing. If we had come under the Glenfield part we would also of had to build a carport, this was in 1997.

[Shalodge]

Yeah that was sort of what I was thinking. Just a bit bummed that they didn't design the subdivision very well and so the un-subdivided section next door (me) has to compensate for their lack of parking and space to turn around. Guess I will see what the neighbours think and hope they are agreeable. As a side note, I know that new properties built these days have to provide 2 offroad car spaces. Any ideas what the rules were back in the early nineties?

And this from another thread..

The only affected party for a non complying drive is the applicant who has to suffer a narrower driveway than some arbitrary rule. The rest of this is a crock of s****. Complyng in every respect except the drive , and NO affected parties. So who really decides the fate of the poor applicant-- and on what real grounds could they turn it down ? The RMA is about environmental effects

And this from the same poster..

~So how is a neighbour affected if your access strip is say only 2.7m wide instead of 3

So the RMA and planning process is a crock of s*** is it ?.. There are effects .. sometimes they don't appear right away.. As always .. it depends on your point of view.

Russell

[Wellingtonreno]

Just checked the interests document and can see that their area is for ingress and egress use only so it appears the council signed off a cross lease with one car space between 2 properties. Madness. The worse thing is that it's up a longish driveway so can't imagine any changes to the current layout will go down well with the other residents.