arborlad wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:16 am
Honey Badger wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:40 am
arborlad wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:10 am
Currently, the hedge is the established boundary feature, if the neighbour or his predecessor planted it , and can evidence it, then the hedge and the land it occupies marks the limit of his land.
Do you or your neighbour have boundary features that abut the highway?
Hi Arborlad, the neighbours other boundary hedge runs along the pavement but we do not share any boundary features that abut the highway, no.
I'm a little befuddled, don't the original deeds dictate the boundary? If the hedge is over that boundary line don't we have a right to remove it in order to install our own fence on our side? Otherwise people could just plants hedges, let them grow nice and wide and then say "all the ground that this hedge covers is now mine"
A tree or hedge can't claim land by growing over it but it can claim land if planted into it. Your neighbours over the road seems to have assessed the situation correctly.
What separates your land from the highway?............highway includes footways and verges.
If I plant a tree in the middle of my neighbour's garden I do not thereby own the land on which it grows.
If I plant a tree anywhere in my neighbour's garden I do not thereby own the land on which it grows.
Whilst evidence of who planted the hedge might be determinative, it only serves as evidence of whether at the time of the planting there was an agreement between the adjoining owners that the hedge marked the boundary by the planter marking the extent of his land. If it is the case that there is no evidence who planted the hedge the diamond pattern will mark the boundary as it will be assumed the hedge was planted by the owner of the land.
Take for example the presumption relating to a hedge and ditch (which is that in such a situation, common in the countryside, there will be a ditch, and a mound of earth on top of which a hedge is planted). This presumes the boundary is on the far side of the ditch to the hedge. This is however only a presumption, and can be rebutted. Lord Hoffman in the case of Wibberley said:
It should be noticed that this rule involves two successive presumptions. First, it is presumed that the ditch was dug after the boundary was drawn. Secondly, it is the presumed that the ditch was dug and the hedge grown in the manner described by Laurence J. If the first presumption is displaced by evidence which shows that the ditch was in existence before the boundary was drawn, for example, as an internal drainage ditch which was later used as a boundary when part of the land was sold, then there is obviously no room for the reasoning of Laurence J to operate.”
In OP's case the boundary was clearly set before the hedge was planted.
Halsbury's Laws say this about ownership of hedges:
The ownership and maintenance of a hedge may be the subject of an express provision in the transfer, lease or licence of a garden. If there is no express provision as to ownership then other evidence may be used to ascertain who owns it. A statutory declaration by the garden owner or neighbour as to which owner on one side or the other has planted and trimmed the hedge may assist with establishing true ownership, or adverse possession.
If the hedge has a ditch along the side then there is a presumption that a garden owner, in digging for footings for the hedge, will have dumped the earth back on his land and not on the land adjoining and therefore the boundary is taken as the side of the ditch furthest from the hedge. This presumption is not displaced where the land is described by reference to an Ordnance Survey map showing the boundary to be in the middle of the hedge.
A hedge may be sufficient to discharge an obligation to fence a garden.