House Purchase - Unadopted Road Help

lovehols

The local authority search indicated that it was a bridleway and even just searching for a bridleway online shows this up too. I'm really confused.....

So if it is a bridleway, the farmer, if he owns it has access.... The issue is us having access with a vehicle. And how useful the indemnity insurance is I have no idea!

Feeling a little overwhelmed... Hopefully the solicitor can look into this for us along with queries over the bridleway, the canal bridge, the indemnity insurance.....

I've checked the OS map and it does show a bridleway. Infact everything I can see online suggests it's a bridleway.

EachPenny

lovehols wrote: »

The local authority search indicated that it was a bridleway and even just searching for a bridleway online shows this up too. I'm really confused.....
...
I've checked the OS map and it does show a bridleway. Infact everything I can see online suggests it's a bridleway.

It probably is a bridleway, but it is one of the things you (or your solicitor) need to tick off the list of possibilites rather than making the assumption that no rights exist. Ignore the OS map as that has no legal status. It is the Definitive Map you need to look at. If you search for 'Definitive Map' plus the name of the county council where the property is located you should be able to find it.

lovehols wrote: »

So if it is a bridleway, the farmer, if he owns it has access.... The issue is us having access with a vehicle.

The relevant legislation is Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This states (for England and Wales):-

34 Prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle—
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, a way shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway is, without prejudice to section 56(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to be taken to be a way of the kind shown, unless the contrary is proved.

The 'without lawful authority' part is the key phrase. The landowner would normally have lawful authority. The council also probably have lawful authority for the purposes of carrying out maintenance. Likewise, the canal owner probably has lawful authority to access the bridge and canal using motorised vehicles for the purpose of maintenance.

People owning land adjoining the track may have lawful authority depending on the circumstances. If a right of (vehicular) access to the property is mentioned in their deeds then that probably represents lawful authority. But in your situation it sounds like that is not the case. However, the deeds of the land the track is on might state that a right of access must be given to you - so that is something which needs to be checked.

Another aspect is the owner of the land the track passes over (e.g. the farmer) should have the right to agree to you passing over his land with a motor vehicle in order to access your property. That could therefore give you the lawful authority you need to avoid prosecution for driving on a bridleway (or footpath).

Bear in mind you are dealing with two different issues here. One is the right to drive on someone else's land, the second is avoiding prosecution (which is fairly unlikely anyway) for driving a vehicle on footpath/bridleway.

That is why it is important to rule out the possibility of the track being a byway (BOAT) because if it is, the landowner cannot stop you driving on it and no offence would be committed by doing so.

lovehols

I've located the definitive map and it is a bridleway *sigh*

Ironically the solicitor never mentioned the bridleway, so I've flagged that up otherwise that would have gone a miss!

DaftyDuck

Also be aware that the bridge (I haven't followed the full thread, so my topography at least may be wrong) that you cross may be a bridleway crossing maintained by farmer, canal trust, whatever. You may even have grained access rights over the land over time....

None of that means the bridge owner has to repair or replace the bridge to more than bridleway standard, so the current bridge could could be replaced with a non motor traffic bridge. Unlikely, but when the repair cost goes through the roof, or the insurable risk skyrockets....

lovehols

Oh my word :eek:

I know the bridge has some work done on it - it's a busy tourist canal route and there is a lock just the other side of the bridge.

The old lock-keepers cottage is opposite the house we are buying, also with access on the bridleway, lane, undaopted road, whatever . . . .

I think over the weekend we will go and chat with the owners of the cottage the other side of the canal.

EachPenny

DaftyDuck wrote: »

None of that means the bridge owner has to repair or replace the bridge to more than bridleway standard, so the current bridge could could be replaced with a non motor traffic bridge. Unlikely, but when the repair cost goes through the roof, or the insurable risk skyrockets....

Road over canal bridges are almost always the responsibility of the canal owner, unless the road was built after the canal.

Each canal had to be authorised by an Act of Parliament, and part of that process usually involved giving all kinds of undertakings to affected parties. They were also built on the cheap, so the canal company wouldn't normally have provided a vehicular bridge unless required, and that requirement is likely to still exist in law.

There are always exceptions of course, but for me the canal bridge would not be high on my list of concerns. It probably has another 200 years of life left in it anyway - canals may have been built on the cheap, but they still built them to last.

EachPenny

lovehols wrote: »

The survey indicated the property was built in the 1970's. Before then local maps showed some greenhouses. It's not that old so you would have thought when planning permission was granted that this was sorted. Perhaps old records would have this information.

The deeds ought to indicate who owned the land before the house(s) were built. That is an important part of the jigsaw.

If the land was owned by the farm then you might inherit permission to drive on the bridleway if the bridleway is on land owned by the same person at the time it was sold of separately.

If the land was owned by the canal company then you might inherit their access rights.

DaftyDuck

I would agree canal bridges were well built - for their intended purpose.

If this bridge was built for mainly roof traffic, it may not withstand motor traffic, particularly heavy (removals) traffic.

Were the bridge to become compromised, repair might be slightly in the extreme, or the owner might forbid the use of motor crossings in the grounds of damage/danger.

The rights gained for access do not trump safety, and would not force an upgrade to the bridge structure.

The bridge adds, for me, a considerable extra hurdle that common experience doesn't meet. For me, it is the biggest hurdle by far.

It may prove a non-issue, and I'd urge the OP not to be too daunted at this early stage. However, might be worth watching other costs and doing DIY homework first.

lovehols

Well I've emailed the Canals and Waterways Trust to ask if they have ownership of the bridge, or indeed the lane.

There is no land registry information for the farm. However one of the properties that is opposite (across the canal) who access it just before the bridge did have land registry information. Their title information says:

The land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is
subject to the rights reserved by a Deed dated xxxx 1976 made between (then three people's names).

So it seems they have access but it doesn't mention the bridleway. More to the point the map doesn't show parking or anything and they drive down the topath to park in front their cottage and have a garage sort of area.

EachPenny

DaftyDuck wrote: »

If this bridge was built for mainly roof traffic, it may not withstand motor traffic, particularly heavy (removals) traffic.

I understand the track on the far side of the bridge leads up to a farm, which presumably was there (in some form) at the time the canal was built. Assuming the bridge is original, then it was almost certainly built pre-1850 and therefore well before motorised vehicular traffic. As such it would be constructed for horsedrawn farm traffic, with axle loadings in the region of a couple of tons maximum.

However, bridge design at the time was largely empirical and since axle loads were not the limiting factor, stability tended to be the key design criteria. Brick arches (making an assumption here) would be built to a design that would resist abutment spread and arch flattening (due to the bridge's own weight, not the loading on top), and quite often they were built to a common design rather than tailored to suit the nature of the road/lane/track they carried. As a result, many canal bridges have more than enough capacity to take 44tonne lorries, despite a vehicle like that being unimaginable to the designer

The main issue with bridge lifespan is the volume of traffic, as repeated loading and unloading of the structure causes damage over time. So an accommodation bridge giving access to a farm is likely to be in far better shape than an identical bridge on a public road.

If there is a problem with the strength of the bridge then the owner should have posted signs either side warning of the problem - so this is something the OP can check quite easily.

DaftyDuck wrote: »

Were the bridge to become compromised, repair might be slightly in the extreme, or the owner might forbid the use of motor crossings in the grounds of damage/danger.

The rights gained for access do not trump safety, and would not force an upgrade to the bridge structure.

On the contrary, if the bridge has been provided as accommodation works and is the only means of access to the property beyond, then the owner is legally compelled to maintain it fit for purpose and carry out any repair or replacement required. However, they cannot be compelled to strengthen the structure to carry new loadings which were not relevant to the purpose of the original agreement.

The bridge owner can only restrict the use of the bridge by agreement - either by compensating the landowners for the loss of access, or by providing an alternative means of access.

That is where the OP might come unstuck - if the house they are looking at doesn't have any rights on its own, then they will be dependent on the farmer not being swayed by cash to accept a restriction on the bridge. But that would only be relevant if it were deemed the bridge no longer had sufficient capacity for unrestricted access.

I would suggest the probability of the bridge becoming unsuitable for use by cars is very slim.