We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Blue shaded area on land registry - massive tree
Comments
-
Thanks for all the replies, including the one that makes me look real bad (my wording on point#2 wasn't great !).
Some answers to questions from you guys:
1) Land Registry says the blue area is "mines and minerals". As in my post, it's on my deeds but not the neighbours. It's within my red line.
2) A tree surgeon already advised he'd need the neighbour to sign that he was happy with the cut on our side, due to concerns about the tree being heavy on one side
3) Yes, i know - i bought the house knowing there was a huge tree at the back of the garden. It was a mistake and i don't have the option of moving, so i'm trying to deal with it the best i can. It was winter when we looked (no excuse)
4) The tree is not protected by TPO or Conservation
5) Title deeds also mentions "contains a provision as to light an air". Don't know it's that helps me.
6) Since both properties excluded the tree from their gardens (ie, built their fences around the tree with the tree on the outside) it's not clear who owns. Majority of the trunk would appear to be over on their side but i think i read that might be misleading and not guarantee who owns it. Someone suggested i should see a surveyor and have them look into the ownership further? For sure, ownership is not clear to me. Land Registry doesn't make too clear (to me).
Thanks again guys.0 -
We still don't know whether the part shaded blue forms part of your garden or your neighbour's garden, or whether you are saying you have checked both titles, and the boundary (red) actually goes directly through the part shaded blue and cuts the tree in half?
Edit. Sorry - written when you were posting the above!0 -
If the tree is in the blue bit, and the blue bit is within your boundary according to the title deeds, then surely the tree is yours? Ignore where the fences currently are - they could be wrongly positioned.0
-
No, it doesn't...PrivateRyan wrote: »1) Land Registry says the blue area is "mines and minerals".
It may say something about the mineral extraction rights that apply to that portion of your land, though. It's probable that that portion was purchased separately, and whoever sold it retained the mineral rights.
If you want to understand it, post the full wording, not just a brief out-of-contact precis. It sounds as if it says nothing about the ownership of the tree, however, so for this purpose it's irrelevant.
Can you post images of the relevant portion of the land - both the LR boundaries and ideally something that shows exactly how and where the tree sits.
I'd be surprised if there really is no TPO on a tree of that size if you're in any kind of urban environment. There may not be a specific one, but there's very likely to be a generic one that applies to all trees above a certain size.
You can sell and move. It might not suit your preferences and situation, and it might even be a bit more expensive than you'd like. But it very definitely is an option.0 -
Blood from a stone......
For additional information, and at a cost of £6.00, download your neighbour's Title document and Title Plan for comparison of the boundary with your own.PrivateRyan wrote: »
1) Land Registry says the blue area is "mines and minerals".
PLEASE QUOTE.
As in my post, it's on my deeds but not the neighbours. It's within my red line.
OK. So it's your tree.
Except that youlater go on to throw doubt on this. Make up your mind!
2) A tree surgeon already advised he'd need the neighbour to sign that he was happy with the cut on our side, due to concerns about the tree being heavy on one side
So you just asked the surgeon to cut ... what? One side of your tree? The branches over-hanging this non-boundary fence?
3) ......
4) .....
5) Title deeds also mentions "contains a provision as to light an air". Don't know it's that helps me. No.
6) Since both properties excluded the tree from their gardens (physically perhaps, but notlegally) (ie, built their fences around the tree with the tree on the outside) it's not clear who owns.
????? See 1) above!
Majority of the trunk would appear to be over on their side their side of .... what???
but i think i read that might be misleading and not guarantee who owns it.
well as you don't say 'their side of what, how can we help you guarantee it (or otherwise)?
Someone suggested i should see a surveyor and have them look into the ownership further?
he'll ask all th questions we are trying hard to get you to answer.....
For sure, ownership is not clear to me. Land Registry doesn't make too clear (to me).
Yes, we got that!0 -
sorry, i appear to be annoying a few folk. please bear with me for a little while longer. i'm going to upload the pics/deeds and wording and hopefully make more clearer.0
-
Wasn't sure how to post images, so hopefully one of the below works. This is something i drew to hopefully help you guys. I'm getting the land registry deeds and will post shortly, assuming one of the below links work.

[IMG]<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=ra0mso" target="_blank"><img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/ra0mso.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>[/IMG]
http://tinypic.com/r/ra0mso/9
http://i65.tinypic.com/ra0mso.jpg0 -
PrivateRyan wrote: »
So going by that, the plots have probably been extended with a notch, which has then been "squared off" at some point in the past. All very historically interesting, but the only relevant thing is the current boundary. And it looks like that brought the vast majority of the tree into your neighbour's land. It's his tree.0 -
-
A: Property Register
This register describes the land and estate comprised in
the title.
DERBYSHIRE : NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE
1 The Freehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the above Title
filed at the Registry
2 The land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is subject to the
rights reserved by the Transfer dated 7 July 1976 referred to in the
Charges Register.
3 The Transfer dated 7 July 1976 referred to above contains a provision
as to light or air.
4 There are excluded from this registration the mines and minerals
excepted by a Conveyance of the land tinted blue on the filed plan and
other land dated 10 November 1920 made between (1) Alice Maud Pickering
and Lilian Greensmith and (2) John Truswell in the following terms and
the land is also subject to the following ancillary powers of working:-
"EXCEPT AND RESERVING nevertheless unto the Vendor and each of them and
their and each of their heirs and assigns out of the Conveyance hereby
made the said Flockrow or Deep Soft Seam of Coal and all other mines
and minerals and mineral oil not heretofore excepted and lying within
and under the said closes pieces or parcels of land with full power to
work and get and carry away and sell and dispose of the same by
underground workings only and subject as to the said park gate and
Silkstone Seams to the exception thereof to the said Harriett Glossop"
5 There are excluded from this registration of the land tinted pink on
the filed plan the mines and minerals excepted by the Conveyance dated
8 December 1967 made between (1) Sir Francis Osbert Sacheverell Sitwell
(Vendor) (2) Leslie Poles Hartley and Coutts & Co. and (3) Thomas Lowe
& Sons Limited (Purchaser) in the following terms and the land is also
subject to the following ancillary powers of working:-
"EXCEPT AND RESERVING all mines and minerals whatsoever including
gannister (except building stone and clay for brickmaking) and oil
within and under the land hereby assured AND RESERVING unto the persons
entitled thereto the full right power and liberty to win work get and
carry away the same or any adjacent or contiguous minerals but by
underground workings only and without leaving any support for the
surface of the premises hereby assured or for any buildings now or
hereafter to be erected thereon and without liability for any damage
that may be caused by working excepted minerals AND ALSO RESERVING unto
the persons entitled thereto the rents powers liberties advantages and
privileges granted or enjoyed under any existing lease (if any) of such
excepted mines and minerals or to be granted or enjoyed under any
future letting or working or otherwise whether or to be granted or
enjoyed under any future letting or working or otherwise whether in the
same terms or similar terms or otherwise AND IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that
the Purchaser shall not acquire any rights whatsoever for or in respect
of excepted mines and minerals or any lease or leases thereof"0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
