Moving a fence into land maintained by council but inside my boundary

Cobrasteve

ttp://i68.tinypic.com/2e6c6c9.jpg

AdrianC

Cobrasteve wrote: »

Cobrasteve wrote: »

Images sorted.

My title papers show red line, green dotted line is where the fence physically sits.
I know plans can be out and out of scale but by 12 feet?

Whats the safest route? As I belive i have every right to move my fence to the red lines. (Circles mark trees) woods to the sides and only person Ive seen there is the council tree officer assessing trees. A few years ago.

It certainly looks as if the fence is well within your boundary - especially given that both lines can be easily "drawn" onto the ground using other boundary features.

EachPenny

Cobrasteve wrote: »

I know plans can be out and out of scale but by 12 feet?

The issue with plans is not just the scale, but also how accurate they were in the first place. A plan is just a pictorial representation of a physical thing, and if the plan was drawn by someone who misinterpreted what they saw then the plan can be out by a lot more than 12 feet.

Just because an Ordnance Survey plan shows an apparent boundary feature in a particular position, it doesn't make that the legal boundary.

What really counts are any dimensions marked on the plan (it isn't clear but I assume the dimensions on the plan are ones you've added?) and the overall size of the plot (e.g. acres, hectares, Sqm etc)

The red line on the plan might represent a feature (e.g. a hedge) which was removed as part of the development with the new boundary to be marked by something else (e.g. a fence) along the new line.

I wouldn't assume I had the right to move the fence unless I could establish from the deeds that the fence is in the wrong place, and not without informing the council that I was intending to move it. Even though nobody is living on the land, it is owned by somebody (the public) and the council has a legal duty to protect the public rights.

Furthermore, if the land is 'woodland' and contains wildlife of interest, you could find yourself facing prosecution if you carry out works which disturb that wildlife. Doing so as part of an unlawful 'land grab' (if that's what it turned out to be) might be treated as a serious criminal offence.

Cobrasteve

Thanks for the reply. This is not OS map but the title deeds.

To me it looks like the builders just followed a fence line from next door and went with that.

EachPenny

Cobrasteve wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. This is not OS map but the title deeds.

Yup, but they are usually based on either OS plans or plans submitted by the developer. In this case it looks like a developer plan based on a topographical survey.

Whether an OS plan or a topo survey, the accuracy depends on the surveyor/plan draughtsperson correctly interpreting what is on the ground and intended in the design. Plans also undergo revision.

For that reason, if the deeds don't give specific dimensions, you cannot automatically assume that a line drawn on a plan is an accurate representation of the boundary and scale dimensions off to remeasure on site.

The plan suggests your property and the one next door were built at the same time... is that the case?

Cobrasteve

They were all built same time. 60’s.
So if you say there is no recorded measurements then whats to argue the counter if the red line was to be used as a boundary marking and as my house and next door both measure 34’ and there is a discrepancy of my boundary of 12ft.
How could I be accused of a “land grab” if there is nothing to counter my belief of where the correct line should be? Im not looking to nick land, but by the looks of what I have, I dont understand how I could be in the wrong!?

EachPenny

Cobrasteve wrote: »

They were all built same time. 60’s.

Which makes it odd that your garden on that plan goes back further than theirs - you'd normally expect the rear boundary to follow through, as it does with the fence lines as they are. Of course the step-back might exist on the original property boundary (before the development was built) but if that's the case then it is a remarkable coincidence that the step occurs exactly on the boundary between you and the neighbour.

Who owns the land at the rear... is it also the council?

Cobrasteve wrote: »

So if you say there is no recorded measurements then whats to argue the counter if the red line was to be used as a boundary marking and as my house and next door both measure 34’ and there is a discrepancy of my boundary of 12ft.

I'm not saying there aren't any recorded measurements, they could be in your deeds, or in the deeds for the original land, or for the land owned by the council. I'm not an expert on land registry type issues, but have dealt with some boundary issues - as it happens cases involving council land on one side of a disputed boundary. In each case I dealt with there was a process of gathering all the evidence and both parties coming together to agree on what the correct boundary should be.

It looks to me like you need to do a similar kind of thing - for example, have you obtained a copy of the records for the council owned land to see whether they match yours?

Cobrasteve wrote: »

How could I be accused of a “land grab” if there is nothing to counter my belief of where the correct line should be? Im not looking to nick land, but by the looks of what I have, I dont understand how I could be in the wrong!?

Put it this way, if you came home one day and found the council had moved your fence and made your garden 12' narrower, based on a red line on a drawing they'd fished out of the archives, would you be saying 'Ok then', or would you be asking them to prove it?

It isn't uncommon for people to try and appropriate public land by moving fences, and someone at the council will notice if the fence gets moved. Even if you are right, if you move the fence without the council's agreement you will potentially be setting yourself up for a dispute.

At the moment there is nothing to counter your belief because you haven't asked the council what their belief is (as far as it appears from your posts).