Whose Boundary?

moneyistooshorttomention

As far as I can recall (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) but I think that legal presumption about stream ownership (when there are different owners each side) is something to do with the banks of the stream - as in it's assumed that (regardless of human-made boundaries - like walls for instance) it's assumed that said human-made boundaries will be set back a bit from the "real" boundary (ie an invisible line halfway across the stream) to allow for the stream banks.

That's from memory - but I'm pretty sure that's how the system works.

MoneyGeoff

I agree that the wall is irrelevant and that the land registry shows the boundaries, and they don't necessarily coincide with fences and walls.

But boundary is the black line, and the stream is entirely on the farmers side of the black line.

Also, for my neighbours to the sides, the plusses are on their side of the line whereas for my property the plusses are on the farmer's side of the line.

Badger50

The boundary not corresponding to the actual course of the stream does not necessariliy signify. Watercourses can and do move over time and when they define a boundary the boundary moves with them. It is not impossible that the farmer does own the entire stream and the bank on your side but it would be a very unusual set up. The way I read the plan is that the tees or pluses indicate your river bank.

MoneyGeoff

Badger50 wrote: »

The boundary not corresponding to the actual course of the stream does not necessariliy signify. Watercourses can and do move over time and when they define a boundary the boundary moves with them. It is not impossible that the farmer does own the entire stream and the bank on your side but it would be a very unusual set up. The way I read the plan is that the tees or pluses indicate your river bank.

I guess the thing that bugs me is that they went to the bother of showing the stream on the plan, and it doesn't coincide with the boundary. If there was nothing shown other than a boundary then we could safely assume the stream is the boundary.

Also, the walls are 300 years old, so existed long before the land was divided up and sold off.

I do take your point though about the river bank. Looking at it again, it does seem to be that the Tees are trying to indicate my river bank. I had wrongly assumed the Tees were to do with the black line/wall.

AdrianC

MoneyGeoff wrote: »

The thing is the stream is right next to my house but miles away from the neighbour's house. So I will clear it anyway because there's nothing compelling the neighbour to clear it.

...and that's the single most important factor.

So I guess what I really want to know is can I clear it and leave the cuttings on his land? I have hardly any land and a very small car so can't easily dispose of it. He has tractors and farm machinery and acres of land.

You also said...

MoneyGeoff wrote: »

OK thanks. I am currently clearing the whole of the stream. It sounds like I am OK to leave the cuttings from the farmers side on his land.

Note that I have his permission to be on his land and and do the cutting.

When I pointed out to him that the tress and bushes are blocking my view he said I can cut whatever I want. Was hoping he'd offer to help but he didn't :P

I'd be checking with him that he had no issue with burning it, then finding a suitably inoffensive corner of the land not too far away. Pile it all up there, let it dry out a bit, then light it. Obviously, if there's crops on that land, then take a bit of care not to damage them. You want to keep him on side, and a little bit of give-and-take makes a huge difference. The last thing you want is him taking umbrage at you leaving a massive pile of rubbish in the middle of his crops, banning you from setting foot on his land, and from touching his watercourse. Remember, it will be precisely zero skin off his nose if it does get overgrown.

MoneyGeoff

AdrianC wrote: »

I'd be checking with him that he had no issue with burning it, then finding a suitably inoffensive corner of the land not too far away. Pile it all up there, let it dry out a bit, then light it. Obviously, if there's crops on that land, then take a bit of care not to damage them. You want to keep him on side, and a little bit of give-and-take makes a huge difference. The last thing you want is him taking umbrage at you leaving a massive pile of rubbish in the middle of his crops, banning you from setting foot on his land, and from touching his watercourse. Remember, it will be precisely zero skin off his nose if it does get overgrown.

He already has piles of bramble and bushes collected from other boundaries so ideally I could add to those. I guess he's going to burn it at some point (the fields are not farm land). There's no room for bonfires on my side.

Agree about give and take. That's why I'm volunteering to do all of the difficult work and only asking in return that I increase the size of his bramble piles a bit.

I'll try to get hold of him again. He's never in though and lives miles away and isn't particularly friendly. His brother in law does the mowing so it's him I usually speak to.

Really wish I'd covered the topic of waste disposal the one time I did manage to speak to him to get permission to be on his land to do the cutting.

AdrianC

Just add 'em to the piles, then...

MoneyGeoff

Dunno, it feels wrong. I didn't discuss that part with him, we only talked about chopping stuff that's blocking my view and blocking the stream. His piles are right across the field so I'd feel like a bit of a fly tipper moving the waste to there.

At the moment I'm just standing in the stream then chopping and dumping overgrowth onto his bank, which seems reasonable.

Will try to contact him again to clear it up.