Land Query

[Lynwoodley]

Hi I have a building that I have just found out the local council have supposedly adopted, they say we still own the land but they have right of way. They have now let a mobile company build on it and install an Ariel, can they do this or do they only have access

[factor-fiction]

What do your deeds say, Lynn.
You say you have 'just found out...'. Does that mean they have only just adopted it or does it mean it happened a while ago and you weren't told.
And I'm confused- you say you have a building but then you talk about land. Is it a fixed building or a caravan/temporary structure and are you going to have to remove it?

[murraymints]

if they only have access rights no...you need to get your deeds looked at by conveyance sol...

[Lynwoodley]

Hi. I own a building with land, which we bought about 13 years ago the council say they have adopted a small part of the land, which we knew nothing about as it is on our deeds, we had a dispute with somebody else and while we were looking into and measuring boundaries we realized that the council had let orange build a telecom box and Ariel on it this was about about 20 months ago, until then it was our parking area it is on our deeds but they say they have right of way. Can they just let them build on this land

[factor-fiction]

Okay. Sorry I'm still not clear about this. I must be misunderstanding something but I'm not clear how you could suddenly realise that a box and aeriel had appeared.
Ask them for evidence of right of way.
Or if your deeds clearly say it's your land and they have no right of way, see a solicitor about taking legal action

[factor-fiction]

^Aerial

[Lynwoodley]

They say they have been maintaining the land I was out of the country for a few months so was not there when they erected it, it went through planning as we did not get a letter but they say hey posted it on a lamp post outside so that was ok. as we were not there we did not know anything about it. it is a large parking area and this is just on he end of it so not something we took a lot of notice of until we had other problems on the land. They have a right of way marked on some plans that they have but they are not on our land registry deeds, on those it shows that we own the land and they have agreed that we own the land but hey have right of was. Do you know if they have right of way only can hey let a third party build on our land I thought they had access only and that it had to be kept clear at all times.

[buildersmate]

OK, first things first. Planning consent and legal ownership / right of access are completely unrelated. It is perfectly feasible for an individual (or organisation) to get planning consent for some development that is not onland that they own themselves.

If the local authority says that you own the land (are you really, really sure that they have confirmed they agree this?) that it is inconceivable that they (or anyone else) has the right to allow a third-party organisation to develop a structure on your land. That is why I am asking whether you are sure about this. Councils make mistakes but that would appear to be a monumental foul-up, if they have. Bear in mind that although the local authority may be the body granting planning consent, that doesn't mean that they are authorising the structure can be built.

I do not know what document you are using to assert that you own the 'small piece of land'. You cannot scale off the title plan to work out what you own exactly as the LR only show what they call 'General Boundaries' on their plans and exact positions of boundaries can vary slightly (by say 0.5m or less) over time as owners on each side of a common boundary put fences up etc. Are you sure they are not saying "We've fenced and been maintaining this boundary for more than 12 years so claim the boundary exactly where the current fence is". How wide (and long) is this piece of land we are talking about anyway?

The right of way statements you make are confusing too. A private right of way typically confers a right to cross / recross a parcel of land (on foot, by horse, or by vehicle - various types) from one point on one side to the other side by a specific landowner (and often those on his authority) - not generally access the WHOLE area of the land. And that right should show somewhere on your title register. Does it?

More info needed to give you better informal advice.

[buildersmate]

OK, so the dispute is over the ownership of the verge.

I agree, this is not about private rights of way. If the verge is demonstrable as part of the public highway, it is perfectly permissible for anyone to pass / repass over it, and it is also OK for a utility company to erect structures on it (subject to planning, where necessary). Is is how many thousands of rural electricity poles are positioned - in the verges on public highways.

I need to do a bit more research then I'll get back on here. First, 2 more questions: 1) Is there a ditch/bank anywhere on this verge? 2) Is there any ancient (or indeed modern) fencing or hedging?

Finally you might wish to ask AB to remove part of all of your entry above - there is enough info provided to specifically identify your land from this.

[Lynwoodley]

Yes there is a ditch but it is about 4 meters from this area we have a fence but it stops short of this area but the true line carries on and this area is on our side

[Lynwoodley]

How can you delete

[buildersmate]

As a general principle in English land law (unless specifically covered in the deed / land title document), where a parcel of land abuts a public highway, if there is a ditch / bank hedge arrangement, the ditch will be on the highway side, with the bank/hedge inside your parcel of land. The legal boundary is then on the FAR side of the ditch (closest to the highway). However if there is a significant width of land between the far edge of the ditch and the start of the carrigeway, this is the public verge and not part of your land.

That is the general principle (though I am not saying it applies here).

If that bit of information applied here, would the telecomms mast be in the public verge, or on your land still?

Just because your title plan shows a red line that appears to show abutment to the tarmacammed road surface doesn't mean you actually own that far, I'm afraid.

[Lynwoodley]

Yes that still puts the telecommunications box on our land. We have a fence along the ditch and if you carried the fence on the box would still be on our land

[buildersmate]

OK, I'm intrigued enough to take it a bit further.

It sounds like the local authority may have made an assumption about the width of the verge that may have extended it beyond what is reasonable in common law. How wide is this verge to the road-side edge of your ditch? How far beyond that is this box that mobile company Orange has put there?

Yet more - what were you hoping for as a resolution? - removal of the box or payment of rent for the use of your land (if proven), or something else?

The council clearly aren't going to do anything unless you stump up the big sum of money they want. They hope that will dissuade most folks from pursuing it. Are you going to be prepared to start writing letters to them challenging this? - I can perhaps point you in the general direction but I'm not going to draft letters!

Meanwhile have a look at this, which explains how messy these situations can become (scroll down to the bit about boundaries with roads).
http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/titleplans.html

[Lynwoodley]

Hi I have a plan is there anyway I can send you a copy so you can see it. We don't want this on our land the telecommunication company approached us and asked us if they could pay us and install on a different part of our land but we said no this was about 4 years ago, so the council are probably being paid for letting our land. I am quite prepared to write letters and pay and take this further if its possible we may win. Thanks for all your advise it is greatly appreciated

[factor-fiction]

It sounds to me that you need to engage a suitably experienced solicitor to take this forward with you now- this is a complicated area and although you may be able to resolve it yourself I think a solicitor is more likely to be listened to and will know the best way to approach this.
Let us know how you get on

[buildersmate]

OK I need more time.

I don't really do disclosure on this site - though I have worked out where the general location is (the postcode - from your earlier posting you now have sensibly had removed). Trouble is, there's a rather large HQ of a major plc nearby with loads of Applications!

I've been trawling through the local authority planning decisions (I know which LA it is) from around 20 months ago, trying to identify the specific Application. I thought this thing had been there about that length of time - not 4 years. Do you know the date of the Planning Decision? (don't post the PA number).

It's unlikely the local authority gets rent for this - utilities are permitted to put what they like on or in the public highway (subject to planning) - otherwise water companies would be paying to have their sewers under the highway!

I'll get back to you later in the weekend. BM

[Skyline D]

Surely "Orange" doesn't count as a "utility" though? I h clients who have mobile phone masts on their properties. They are all paid for it. Why would they do that if they could just erect it on public land instead and pay nothing?

[Lynwoodley]

Yes we were offered money to put in on the back of our land but we declined it. I am trying to find the date of application.

[buildersmate]

If you indicate the date of the planning application, I will probably be able to locate it. The search facility on planning applications of the local authority responsible is not very advanced. The road that I suspect is involved runs roughly N-S and I suspect your land to be on the E side of the road, at a kink in the road, near the S end. Even then Google Earth doesn't help me much to see what's on the ground.

So if the telecomms company involved has offered to relocate the equipment into a verge area where you do not dispute it is 'your' land, I'm now confused as to what outcome you want from this. Has your angle on this changed since I suggested that you are unlikely to be able to demonstrate land ownership right up to the edge of the tarmac carriageway if there is evidence of a historic ditch a short way back from the edge of the carriageway?
I'm still unclear whether you are after the equipment's removal (why) or compensation / rent for the equipment being located on (what you believe is) your land.