Odd easement boundary issue

EachPenny

sgun wrote: »

It is registered as part of the garden.

That doesn't answer ProDave's question, the Planning status is independent of what it might be registered as. And the Planning status will be the important one as far as your future plans are concerned.

sgun wrote: »

There is also a restrictive covenant that prohibits building or extending so it isn't that.

Restrictive covenants can be challenged, whereas an easement for something essential like 'drainage' is a much tougher nut to crack.

sgun wrote: »

The vendors are saying it is for the farmers drains. I just don't see why there would be drains there.

Difficult to comment without seeing pictures of the site and getting an idea of how the land lies, but 'drains' around the edge of a field are commonplace. The way the pink area wraps around the house says to me a possible infilled ditch perhaps? What happens at the back of the house next door - is there anything on the ground there which might give a clue?

pinklady21 wrote: »

Might be field drainage? Depends on the lie of the land, which is something that might be obvious just from looking at it.
Worth asking anyway if there are any buried pipes or cables etc in that (or indeed any) part of the garden.

Absolutely!

EachPenny

sgun wrote: »

Thanks so much davidmcn, very helpful and puts my mind at rest a bit, I'll make sure my conveyancer asks all the right questions (as I am sure she would anyway!)

If I've found the right location then you also ought to ask the conveyancer about the potential for planning consent being sought/granted for additional houses on that field. It looks like a village which has seen quite a bit of development in recent years.

If you look closely at the pink area where it meets the road you can see it tapers to maximise the road frontage of the field. A cynic like myself would wonder whether this taper and length of frontage was deliberate in order to meet design standards for an access road serving additional properties on the field.

The angle and position of the taper also seem to align closely with the dashed line representing the 'existing drain' from the farm to the road (as shown on the older plan). So an alternative possibility is that the taper is there so this existing drain was retained within the land owned by the farm... but if so, then why couldn't this have been dealt with by the alleged easements over the pink area? (if the taper didn't exist and was replaced with a straight boundary)

The land appears to fall towards the house and road, and also from South to North (bottom to top on the plans). Therefore the pink area would be the ideal location to place drains serving the field running down and out towards the road. However, there is no sign of a watercourse for surface water to discharge into, and you'd rarely get permission for field drainage to go into a public sewer. Therefore my suspicions are raised that the purpose of any (planned) drains might not be field drainage.

The next step I'd take would be to delve into the planning history of the farm, and also to see if the Local Development Plan process has identified any sites locally for housing development. It would not surprise me to find at least part of the field is included in the settlement boundary, and if so, that could facilitate possible future planning applications.

I'm not suggesting there is any certainty of further development, but it might be something you want to check out and be aware of.

sgun

EachPenny wrote: »

If I've found the right location then you also ought to ask the conveyancer about the potential for planning consent being sought/granted for additional houses on that field. It looks like a village which has seen quite a bit of development in recent years. It hasn't had any development since the 1950's when the houses opposite were built (It is a village in Northumberland beginning with the letter G). I was concerned that the field looks perfect for development. The road to the bottom of the image is actually just a track, barely room for one car to get through its narrowest point and it couldn't be widened so they would need an access road from the main street and I have concerns about the pink area being used. The pink area has never been used as an access road and has never been accessed by the farmer in the last 15 years. The vendors have actually placed their oil tank and a very large shed (a good 15 foot long) on area to the left. The farmer clearly knows about this as he lives next door and hasn't objected, the vendors know him well. But this could cause us issues in the future I think

If you look closely at the pink area where it meets the road you can see it tapers to maximise the road frontage of the field. A cynic like myself would wonder whether this taper and length of frontage was deliberate in order to meet design standards for an access road serving additional properties on the field. Yes, my thoughts exactly at first. This is the real sticking point for me.

The angle and position of the taper also seem to align closely with the dashed line representing the 'existing drain' from the farm to the road (as shown on the older plan). So an alternative possibility is that the taper is there so this existing drain was retained within the land owned by the farm... but if so, then why couldn't this have been dealt with by the alleged easements over the pink area? (if the taper didn't exist and was replaced with a straight boundary) The taper is odd, I also think it follows the position of the existing drain. Again, I wonder why they need the pink area to maintain the drain if it is on their land. It makes me think the pink area is their for other reasons. Without it specifying in the Charged Register I am at a loss to know what the easement is for.

The land appears to fall towards the house and road, and also from South to North (bottom to top on the plans). Therefore the pink area would be the ideal location to place drains serving the field running down and out towards the road. However, there is no sign of a watercourse for surface water to discharge into, and you'd rarely get permission for field drainage to go into a public sewer. Therefore my suspicions are raised that the purpose of any (planned) drains might not be field drainage. I don't think it is field drainage. Father in Law is a farmer and he can see no reason to have put a field drain in there and also agrees that a field drain would never drain into a public sewer.

The next step I'd take would be to delve into the planning history of the farm, and also to see if the Local Development Plan process has identified any sites locally for housing development. It would not surprise me to find at least part of the field is included in the settlement boundary, and if so, that could facilitate possible future planning applications. Thankyou, I will be asking my conveyancer to look at the farm and also see if she can track down the 1985 conveyance of the land from farm to house. There are areas in the village identified in the Local Development Plan for possible housing but that field wasn't one of them. I'm not sure if this would/could change. The village is in a conservation area, again not sure if this makes a difference. Why would it make a difference if the field is included in the settlement boundary?

I'm not suggesting there is any certainty of further development, but it might be something you want to check out and be aware of. This is the main worry that we have and the pink shaded area is not making me feel any more secure about it.

Thanks for your comprehensive response. More to look at and consider. I need to make a decision soon as it isn't fair on the vendors to keep them waiting, they wanted to exchange about a month ago and these inquiries are starting to annoy them.

moneyistooshorttomention

Local Development Plans were something I was aware of on buying current house - and it's in West Wales (ie back of beyond).

So I checked out that plan for here before buying this house (even though I'm in my 60's - and so not quite as worried about that as I would be if I were anticipating rather more years living here, from being younger myself).

One checks things like that - even in remoter areas of the country - in order to see whether any green fields, etc, that are there in the view from the house and being a "positive influence" to buy it are going to remain there for however long one needs them to do so.

That LDP for here duly showed what I suspected - ie I'd lose a bit of "view" and fairly soon:mad:. But the house will keep most of its view for my lifetime:).

That helped weigh up whether to buy it or no and the "Darn it - am likely/almost certain to lose a little bit of the view" was counterbalanced by "This town is only just big enough for me personally - and I want it to expand (more people will mean more facilities) and that will be a bit of Expansion" on the other hand. So I bought it...

sgun

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Local Development Plans were something I was aware of on buying current house - and it's in West Wales (ie back of beyond).

That LDP for here duly showed what I suspected - ie I'd lose a bit of "view" and fairly soon:mad:. But the house will keep most of its view for my lifetime:).

That helped weigh up whether to buy it or no and the "Darn it - am likely/almost certain to lose a little bit of the view" was counterbalanced by "This town is only just big enough for me personally - and I want it to expand (more people will mean more facilities) and that will be a bit of Expansion" on the other hand. So I bought it...

For me the village is just right (tiny no facilities lol!) I wouldn't want to lose the view from the rear of the house as the front looks over houses. Do you know if housing can ONLY be built on areas designated in the Local Development Plan? Of course, the plan could change 10 years down the line but there would be nothing I could do about that. I just have to weigh up the likelihood of the farmer getting plannng permission if the field isn't in the LDP and the village is a conservation area.

moneyistooshorttomention

In an area like I'm now living in - there is an element of "not what you know but who you know" re whether individual houses can be built in a particular location (more than once I've seen a Councillor overturn objections from their own Planning Officer for a particular household;) - where I know that if I personally had wanted that exact same house in that exact same location they wouldn't have been overturned, but having read details of the particular people in that household I see what their reasoning was for doing so:cool::cool::cool:).

As to whether Local Development Plans generally can be overturned - that I don't know and you'd need someone else to reply on that one.

As you say - these Plans can indeed be changed generally and maybe 10 years?/20 years? down the line and the Plan has been changed.

EachPenny

sgun wrote: »

It hasn't had any development since the 1950's when the houses opposite were built (It is a village in Northumberland beginning with the letter G).

Yes, same place then. If you look in the central part of the village near the church you can see some new houses have been built (infill development) and some agricultural buildings converted to residential use (including holiday lets). In both cases it appears to be property/land belonging to the farms, one of which seems to have the same name as your neighbouring farm.

Also, according to the planning files, the house next door to the one you are looking at was built sometime after 1998.

sgun wrote: »

I was concerned that the field looks perfect for development. The road to the bottom of the image is actually just a track, barely room for one car to get through its narrowest point and it couldn't be widened so they would need an access road from the main street and I have concerns about the pink area being used.

I would agree with all of this, hence my previous comments. This is why you need to find out more about the planning history and what the Local Development Plan has in mind for the village.

sgun wrote: »

The vendors have actually placed their oil tank and a very large shed (a good 15 foot long) on area to the left. The farmer clearly knows about this as he lives next door and hasn't objected, the vendors know him well. But this could cause us issues in the future I think

Hopefully you would have an equally good relationship with your neighbour... but it would be wise to consider all the possibilities. Having a large oil tank moved to allow "access to a drain" wouldn't be cheap.

sgun wrote: »

Thankyou, I will be asking my conveyancer to look at the farm and also see if she can track down the 1985 conveyance of the land from farm to house.

This is absolutely essential in my view. And as ProDave raised earlier, also to see if there is any evidence of a change of use of the land from agricultural to residential.

sgun wrote: »

There are areas in the village identified in the Local Development Plan for possible housing but that field wasn't one of them. I'm not sure if this would/could change. The village is in a conservation area, again not sure if this makes a difference. Why would it make a difference if the field is included in the settlement boundary?

Are you sure about the conservation area status? If so this is an important one for you too. The property has a conservatory, shed and oil tank. Is there any evidence that planning consent was obtained for these? Permitted development rights would not normally exist in a conservation area, so specific consent would probably have been needed if they don't pre-date the conservation area status.

I don't know for sure in Northumberland's case, but generally planning authorities have adopted a 'settlement boundary' approach to planning decisions in rural areas. It isn't a hard and fast rule, but land within a settlement boundary would normally be a preferred location for development than land outside a settlement boundary. In a way it is a bit like Green Belt designation. If planning policy says a particular village is suitable for further residential development then land within the settlement boundary would normally be prioritised - you could see it as having one less hurdle to jump. An application for development outside the settlement boundary would need to demonstrate why it were appropriate to develop there, instead of any suitable sites within the settlement boundary.

sgun wrote: »

For me the village is just right (tiny no facilities lol!) I wouldn't want to lose the view from the rear of the house as the front looks over houses. Do you know if housing can ONLY be built on areas designated in the Local Development Plan? Of course, the plan could change 10 years down the line but there would be nothing I could do about that. I just have to weigh up the likelihood of the farmer getting plannng permission if the field isn't in the LDP and the village is a conservation area.

Planning authorities have to look at every application on its own merits, they couldn't simply refuse an application because the Local Plan didn't designate the land for housing - they would have to consider whether the applicant has made an adequate case for departure from the plan.

Unfortunately I've spotted a couple of other things you need to have a look at as well:-

The 1998 planning application for the neighbouring house has a location plan which is an extract of the 1965 Ordnance Survey plan. That shows a very different boundary layout between the two houses and the field compared to the more recent OS extract. It suggests there was possibly another transfer of land between the farm and the house sometime between 1965 and 1985. You'll see what I mean if you look at the plan.

The plans for the neighbouring house also show their foul sewer apparently entering onto your land part way along the common boundary, presumably then crossing your land to connect to the sewer in the road. Is there any reference to this in the legal documentation?

sgun

EachPenny wrote: »

Yes, same place then. If you look in the central part of the village near the church you can see some new houses have been built (infill development) and some agricultural buildings converted to residential use (including holiday lets). In both cases it appears to be property/land belonging to the farms, one of which seems to have the same name as your neighbouring farm.

wow you are good! I suppose when I was talking about "development" I think of 20+ houses but yes, quite a few of the old farm buildings have been converted and land filled in.

You are correct, it isn't in a conservation area - my survey said it was but I have just checked and it isn't. There are issues about lack of certification for many things with the property, along with the placing of the oil tank etc, its making me think that it isn't worth the potential hassle in the future.

I will most certainly get my conveyancer to look into your two final points. We have no indication that next doors sewer runs under the garden and I will definitely check out the planning application and OS extracts to see what on earth might be going on with the boundaries.

Thanks so much, if you are ever in the area I'll buy you a beer