Original title deed vs Land registry map

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby Collaborate » Fri May 05, 2017 4:09 pm

Clifford Pope wrote:

Perhaps because if an organisation sells you the right to develop a plot of land, and then after you have carried out the work, says "Oh, by the way, that's our land", their action might be seen as unreasonable and a little disjointed? It's not advice about land ownership, it's waking up to the fact that it's their own land.



A planning department of a LA does not "sell" a right to develop land. It is well known that anyone can apply for PP, whether or not they own the land. The planning department of the LA does not administer the property owned by the LA, so there is no reason why they would know what property the LA owns anyway. What a fanciful notion you have!
Collaborate
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 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.
 

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby dialallama » Fri May 05, 2017 7:09 pm

Ukmicky - thanks for the input - really appreciate your views on the matter. Could I try to argue a few points with you as you've certainly made me question things.

Youve got me on the measurement point :) Its between 1.5-2m depending on how you measure the 1:500 plan. I agree its not a particularly strong point and never was my main argument. I shall put the tape measure (or lazer measure) away ;)

Ive gone back to the books (or google at least) on the foreshore point. I found the following:

The Foreshore: Geographical Implications of the Three Legal Systems in Great Britain
Derek J. McGlashan, Robert W. Duck and Colin T. Reid
Area
Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 338-347

Apparently there are different definitions depending on the country. The article says the landmark case for English law was Attorney General vs Chambers in 1854 which agreed the foreshore is between mean low and mean high waters.

I take your point that you can not say definitely what was ment by foreshore by the person who drew the plan but it was 50 odd years after the courts had clarified their view.

Just to be clear I have never stated that I think I own the foreshore - my position is that my land borders the foreshore - ie the mean high water mark is the boundary.

As to the movement of sand. My understanding is that the law of accretion means that foreshore boundaries move with the mean high water mark as natural sedimentation (or errosion) of the land occurs. Vis a vis it doesn't matter where the mean high water mark was - only where it is now (currently ~5m from the wall)

The council does make reference to public access. I have no particular desire to stop people walking on the sand and my actions haven't stopped people walking along the sand. There is no public footpath on any map I have seen. When people have complained to council about the risk of triping on mooring lines, and other risks in the area, the council have stated that there is no public right of way and that it is not a public beach- in fact they have told my neighbour they dont own the "beach" when asked to remove some rubbish.

However my main issue here is: does the presence of sand on a piece of land give it any special status under uk law. My understanding is that it doesnt and that there is no legal definition of "beach". If we were talking about a grass embankment rather than sand would that make any difference? Again to be clear, I fully understand the foreshore (below mean high water) is owned by the council and people probably have the right to walk on it.

Finally - I am aware that I may not be able to convince the council to my position (in fact I would be very surprised if they agree given previous form). I expect they may try to bully me and even use tax payers money to fight this (insert expletive here). My concern would be whether I might be eligible for their costs if it went to court and I lost? Personally I would prefer take any alternative route available - eg offer to "buy" the land with conditions of public right of way - as the court route would be very costly over a 5x5m piece of land.

It might be worth mentioning that there is an issue of mooring rights here which I would have no claim to if I dont own this land - hence there is more at stake(but that's a discussion for another day)

Cheers
dialallama
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:24 am

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby jdfi » Sat May 06, 2017 3:38 pm

On the council website there will be a 'definitive map'

Does this show any kind of footpath over the 'foreshore'
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby jonahinoz » Sat May 06, 2017 4:42 pm

Hi,

I always understood that the foreshore belonged to the Crown. Google is less specific ...

The Crown Estate owns 55% of the UK’s foreshore-and the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical miles limit (some 23.6 million acres) although much of the coastal land is leased to third parties, such as local authorities and Natural England. Bodies such as the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, local groups, port authorities, statutory bodies and Government agencies own the other 45%, together with:
* The Church Commissioners in Durham
* The Duke of Beaufort in the Severn Estuary
* The Beaulieu Estate on the River Beaulieu
In addition, The Crown Estate does not generally own the foreshore around the coastline of Cornwall, Sutherland and the Shetland Isles.
Read more at http://www.countrylife.co.uk/articles/w ... 0LYoqiu.99

I suggest that Dialallama requests a copy of the conveyance that apparently conveyed possession of the plot to the LA. Once received, then ask the LA if the Local Development (or latest draft) includes any reference to this stretch of river? Who knows, maybe they are going into the boat mooring business, or plan to build a tidal barrier, or start to sell the sand.(I'm probably joking) I think somebody needs to know on exactly what grounds the LA are basing their claim.

A friend once claimed to have knowledge of an Appeal Court ruling that telling any employee of the LA something, could be construed as informing every employee of the LA. I understand that this was because a council was paying rent direct to the landlord, and then demanded it's return, as the tenant had got a job, and was no longer entitled to Housing Benefit. But somebody employed by the LA was aware that the tenant had got a job. My friends interest in this matter was that he was a landlord.

Google Promisary Estoppal.

There is also the matter of the LA only approaching Dialallama, but not his neighbours. Can they, and should they, be expected to explain this unfairness?

John W
jonahinoz
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby dialallama » Sat May 06, 2017 5:34 pm

Hi jonah

I'll check the councils website for rights of access. However, even if there is a right of access across your land presumably this is not relevant unless you are actually blocking that right (which I am not)

The council owns the foreshore of the creek at the end of my garden

I really believe that (as stated before) the councils deed for the adjacent plot is simply whatever land was left from the original large estate (after the houses where built). Presumably the original land owner didnt want the land anymore. I believe that they have therefore simply perpetuated a mistake that was made when my houses deeds were registered (I think in the 1980s) when they determined the boundary.

The land is a tiny strip of sand going nowhere on a muddy creek. I cant see that it has any value to the council. I think they are only acting out of principle (or more precisely I expect they are responding to a complaint from someone who has a axe to grind)

If there are conveyancing documents, who would hold them? The land reg, the coucil or the original land owner?

Cheers
dialallama
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:24 am

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby ukmicky » Sat May 06, 2017 10:45 pm

dialallama wrote:Hi jonah

I'll check the councils website for rights of access. However, even if there is a right of access across your land presumably this is not relevant unless you are actually blocking that right (which I am not)

The council owns the foreshore of the creek at the end of my garden

I really believe that (as stated before) the councils deed for the adjacent plot is simply whatever land was left from the original large estate (after the houses where built). Presumably the original land owner didnt want the land anymore. I believe that they have therefore simply perpetuated a mistake that was made when my houses deeds were registered (I think in the 1980s) when they determined the boundary.

The land is a tiny strip of sand going nowhere on a muddy creek. I cant see that it has any value to the council. I think they are only acting out of principle (or more precisely I expect they are responding to a complaint from someone who has a axe to grind)

If there are conveyancing documents, who would hold them? The land reg, the coucil or the original land owner?

Cheers
Dialallama

Any chance of seeing a photo of the disputed area and copy of the councils title plan and register and your title plan and register. You can download a copy of the councils from the land registry website.

If you do please blank out anything that may allow someone to identify you or the address of your property.

Also in answer to your question earlier . If this went to court and you were to lose, yes the council can ask the court for an order to make you pay all court costs. If you were to lose and the council were found to have done no wrong but had no choice but to take you to court in order to protect their land there is a chance the court would grant such an order. .


I'm also a little confused now after re- reading an earlier post. If this is about mooring rights then for you to have any rights you would need to be the riparian owner and therefore are you actually saying the council do not own any land on your side between your property and the water .

Also who ownS the bed of the river/ creek, the council or the crown
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby jdfi » Sun May 07, 2017 9:51 am

dialallama wrote:
The council owns the foreshore of the creek at the end of my garden


How do you know? Do they have title on land registry?

dialallama wrote:If there are conveyancing documents, who would hold them? The land reg, the coucil or the original land owner?

Cheers


Whether its registered or unregistered, the council should have something.

I see no reason that the 'something' ought not to be disclosed by FOI
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 pm

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby dialallama » Sun May 07, 2017 11:14 am

Ukmicky/jdfi

When the council wrote to me they included the deed of their land. The whole area used to be owned by a hereditary land owner. The Lord (or whoever) gave bits of land for the building of houses over the last couple of centuries. It looks like in the 90s they decided to give the remainder of the land (including a large portion of the estuary foreshore) to the LA. Their deed map shows this huge parcel of land including the creek. The boundary where it meets my land is shown as the wall (although its microscopic on the map). The earliest date on the wordy bit of the deed is 1992, so I guess that's when it was given to the LA.

My land reg deed also shows the wall as the boundary and seem to mention that it was registered in 1980s. However the original title deed shows a rectangular plot of land with an outline of the house and on each side of the boundary is a written description. For example on the left boundary it says something along the lines of"building site". Given that the houses on the left were built before my house it would seem to me that the deed is allocating a section of what was originally open land. (Ill have to look at some old maps and see what was there before, but im pretty sure it was just open land). The boundary by the creek has the word "foreshore".

The Foreshore is therefore clearly owned by the LA. However my wall is 5m away from the high water mark so there is this area of land between them which is the bit we are talking about. My deck extends about 1m over this land so is 4m away from the high water mark. (For what its worth, many of my neighbours walls are on the high water mark and their decks go beyond on to the foreshore - mine does not - the only possible difference is that I am on the end so am more visible)

The land reg state that the historical registration process had to be very simplistic for time and money sake. They used OS maps and tried to find something on there to stick a boundary on. They seem very open to the idea that mistakes could happen. I guess its worth asking if they have any other docs about the conveyancing of my land that might have lead them to choose the wall and not the high water mark. I guess its also possible that they may not have even seen the title deed. None of the other paperwork I have, which stops in the 70s, adds any more light. I could ask them also about the conveyancing of the councils deeds but it sounds like the council are more likely to hold any docs that might exist.

I explained all this to the LA surveyor, and showed him the title deed. He initally seemed to agree with me but then wrote back saying he disagreed. Ive asked him to explain why he has come to this conclusion - I await a reply.

I have always assumed that the registration of my land in the 80s made a mistake and chose the wrong line on the os map. I did search the land reg for who owned the sand but nothing came up on the search. The councils web map of land assets doesnt include the sand. I took brief legal advice and thought it was pretty clear I owned the land. Someone must have complained about the deck and so the council pushed me for planning permission - which was granted. The complainant must be persistent because a year later I get all of this.

I didnt want to complicate things with mooring rights, but since you ask : if the council owns the sand then my land doesnt border the foreshore and I have no riparian rights. Whilst riparian rights are a bit wooly, the case of British Waterways vs Moore gave a sort of victory to a private land owner keeping a boat on the foreshore bordering his land (even though he didnt own the foreshore that his boat rested upon)

Phew - I was hoping for a simple answer when I started this post. I guess its not so simple afterall. Thanks for the help though. Ill see about attaching some plans but Id rather not put too much in the public domain.
dialallama
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:24 am

Re: Original title deed vs Land registry map

Postby jdfi » Mon May 29, 2017 7:04 pm

dialallama wrote:Phew - I was hoping for a simple answer when I started this post. I guess its not so simple afterall. Thanks for the help though. Ill see about attaching some plans but Id rather not put too much in the public domain.


Do a trace or sketch of the plans and obviously anonymise road names etc.
jdfi
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:39 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.
 
Previous

Return to Boundaries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests