A tricky boundary discussion

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby jonahinoz » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:08 pm

trees aside, the work done on the lane is no less than the actual landowner could have done.

Hi Mac,

As I understand it, the developer has carried out development on land owned by Sophie ... IE, between her fence and her concrete posts.

It could be a genuine mistake (which doesn't make it right), but I would have expected the developers surveyor to have established where the boundary is.

Anybody want to buy some rare newts? :twisted:

Just a thought ... as the road to be adopted will be a mile long, and tarmac, rather than grassy, earthy, foresty, stuff .... which way is the surface water going to flow?

I assume that the LA Planners advised Sophie of the planning application, and gave her a chance to examine the application, and comment? Are the Highways comments available for perusal at the town hall?

John W
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:35 pm

Hi John W,

As I understand it, the developer has carried out development on land owned by Sophie ... IE, between her fence and her concrete posts.

as I understand it the developer has cleared some undergrowth from the outer side of the OP's fence - not too sure whose those concretes posts were but we know they were to be found beyond the OP's fence and hidden in undergrowth...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Sophieg » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:45 pm

Thanks macadam 853
If they were a neighbour would they have been able to remove our original boundary. Yes, the concrete posts were our original boundary and since there was only a private lane on the other side I guess the developers of our estate saw no problem with building a fence just within the boundary because as John points out it is a thin strip of land and no real loss to our 6 acres.

However it could have stopped them digging right up to our fence removing all greenery that was covering our fence and providing us with the security and greenery which we had.

The planning permission/highway development for the road widening specifically states that all landowners along this lane are to be contacted, which they failed to do so we had no idea whatsoever that thus work was going on.
Meeting on Friday. Will update.
Sophieg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby arborlad » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:55 am

Sophieg wrote:....... there was only a private lane on the other side......



Is the owner of this lane known?
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7385
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:54 am

Hi Sophieg,

the concrete posts were our original boundary

just playing devil's advocate, let's say I disagree - what's your evidence?

my evidence is your fence...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Sophieg » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:31 pm

Hi arborlad,
Yes, that's correct, the owner of the lane is unknown.
It has somehow been lost over time.
So that's why its so tricky. The council do not own it, the developers certainly don't own it. But between them they will take it, which is fine but they are taking a little bit more than what is not theirs.
And in the process causing us quite a few problems.
Sophieg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Sophieg » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:37 pm

Hi MacadamB53,
Thanks for playing the other side.
My evidence is a plan that shows the concrete fence that was in place before the new fence was put in place showing dilapidated concrete post & wire fence.
Also luckily google maps has not yet updated and the concrete post were there. The developers removed them, and then dug right up to the existing fence.
Even if they wanted to add a a new pavement they needn't have come that close. The posts do not suit the look that they want on the lane that leads to their houses.
Sophieg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:52 pm

Hi Sophieg,

nobody is disputing whether the posts existed - can you evidence that they stood on your land?

does this plan you mention explicitly show this? (I imagine the google images don't)

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby jonahinoz » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:42 pm

Yes, that's correct, the owner of the lane is unknown.

Hi,

So the Developers will be driving motor vehicles, onto land that they do not own, and without authority, for more than 15 yards. CROW will have to have something to say about that.

Whoever buys the houses will also risk prosecution for either 12years (Adverse possession) or 20 years (Prescriptive Easement).

The Developers are also risking the Paper Owner crawling out of the woodwork, and demanding his land back. Building a lot of £1,000,000 houses without a documented right of access, is one almighty gamble. Should they declare the possibility of a dispute?

Whatever, if I was them, I would try very hard to avoid this being publicised.

The thought crossed my mind, that there are land owners who would be happy to take cash in return for simply walking away from their land ... no taxes to pay, no bank having first dibs on the jackpot to pay off a debt. I'm not saying that is likely in this case.

602
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:51 pm

Hi John W,

I don't recall it being confirmed that the lane isn't a highway...

Kind regards, Mac
edit: The lane is a private road but has been maintained somewhat by the council as they as are we one of the frontages on the lane. There is a refuse tip at the other end of the mile long lane. The council may adopt the road in the future.
Last edited by MacadamB53 on Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby jonahinoz » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:53 pm

Hi,

Further to my mail of a few minutes ago, take a look at ...

http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?4441-quot-Off-Road-quot-Driving

You could also Google RTA Section 34, but it's not so easy to read.

John W
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby jonahinoz » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:04 pm

I don't recall it being confirmed that the lane isn't a highway...

Hi Mac,

My understanding is that a highway, byway, ROW, prescriptive easement has to go somewhere. I am not conversant with BOATs, etc. but I assume the LA ROW Officer is.

If this lane is widened or improved (which ain't allowed) then vehicles will be driving over land that they are not entitled to, and pedestrians will be trespassing. Both are worth taking civil action against ... subject to negotiation

Whatever, the best outcome is that everybody gets compensation that they are happy with, and wait for the fat lady to sing, so all can go quiet once more.

602
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby Sophieg » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:25 pm

Resident who are situated at the bottom of the lane who were consulted during the planning application are claiming quasar(not sure if spelt correctly)

Slight Update: Developers not taking us very seriously as they were supposed to send proposed planting plan before meeting on Friday.It consisted of an offer of grass seed and small shrubs (akin to plant pot size) :evil:
Despite "appearing" to display some empathy at last face to face meeting, looks like they want to see if we prepared to put our money where our mouths are.
So looking for good solicitor but they are really expensive. £300 p/h.
Also arranging meeting to see if the collective are up for a financial battle. Don't know how many hours its going to take for solicitor to say good case or bad.

Tried to upload a picture to show marking on plan. Is it legible?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Sophieg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:19 am

Hi Sophieg,

My evidence is a plan that shows the concrete fence that was in place before the new fence was put in place showing dilapidated concrete post & wire fence.

that's not what you've posted an image of, though?

this evidence - the plan - does it confirm the concrete posts stood on your land, rather than just that they pre-date your fence?

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: A tricky boundary discussion

Postby despair » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:46 am

have you properly checked mortgages ,insurances,credit cards,union memberships for legal expenses cover
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests