A couple are locked in a £160,000 row over their ‘monstrous’ neighbours putting up a six-foot fence they say blocks their front door.

Gary and Kerry Hambling, 48 and 44, bought Garden Cottage near Polstead in Suffolk in 2015.

Their dream country home includes a four-bedroom house with a garden, its own stable block and a two-acre field, located across a driveway owned by neighbours Garry and Jenny Wakerly.

But in June 2017 the Wakerlys put a close-boarded wooden fence along the edge of their driveway and down one side of the Hamblings’ front garden.

The Hamblings say the fence has left them unable to use their front door, has blocked off views of the field from their living room and made the ground floor of their house darker.

They are now only able to access their field by walking along the 60mph A-road on the other side of their £600,000 home.

They also claim the fence has wiped off £100,000 from the value of their property and have labelled their neighbours’ actions ‘deliberately and unpleasantly antagonistic’.

The Hamblings had previously been allowed to use the Wakerlys’ driveway to get to and from their field based on a right of access granted in 2001.

But the Wakerlys decided to block off their driveway after an argument about the Hamblings’ plans to turn part of their field, which had previously been used to exercise horses, into a ‘car park for vans and trucks’.

The Hamblings took the Wakerlys to court in September 2021, but Norwich County Court judge Karen Walden-Smith ruled in favour of the fence staying up.

This was based on the wording of the 2001 right of way, which stipulated that the Wakerlys’ driveway could be used ‘for access to the field not to Garden Cottage’.

Ms Walden-Smith said at the time: ‘The express right of way in this matter is clear. Not only is the right of way for the benefit of the field, but it is expressly said not to be for the benefit of Garden Cottage.’

But the Hamblings have gone on to challenge this finding in the High Court, with their lawyer Dermot Woolgar arguing Ms Walden-Smith misinterpreted this wording.

He argued the Hamblings had the right to use their front door from the track if they were using the road to their field, or were going to the cottage for reasons connected to activities on the field.

He said: ‘The issue is whether the transfer permits that right of way to be exercised only to and from the highway or whether it also permits that right of way to be exercised to and from Garden Cottage.

‘Even if it does not, Mr and Mrs Hambling contend that the right of way enables them to make use of it to go to and from Garden Cottage for purposes which are ancillary to their use of the field.’

He went on: ‘No one would sensibly suppose that the seller would have wanted to render the front door to the cottage forever useless, and to compel the occupiers to use the back door forever after.’

But Charles Irvine, for the Wakerlys, asked the judge to throw out their case and let the fence stand as it is.

He said: ‘Contrary to Mr and Mrs Hamblings’ case, the right of way meaning is as straightforward as the judge found.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected].

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Source: Read Full Article