"Stolen" Pavement

peterhjohnson

On a house I'm looking at, the LR Title Plan from the 1980s shows what would appear to be the pavements running the whole length of the cul-de-sac, IE, a "normal" road/pavement arrangement

On the ground, both pavements end a short distance into the cul-de-sac and there's a rumble strip crossing the road at that point.

The red line on the LR map shows that the house I'm interested in doesn't own any part of the pavement area - as one might expect. However, all the owners are using "their bit" of this pavement area for lawn, driveway, etc.

Could there have been some later agreement (that I can't see) that got rid of the pavements and gave them to the residents?

Or is this a can of worms?

G_M

There could be, but if this had been done formally I imagine it would be apparant from the land Registry Title.


* buy the nighbours' Titles (£3 each) and see if anything appears there.
* Or knockon their doors and ask!
* failing that, is it even a big concern? What's the worst that could happen? You buy the house and start using the land for lawn etc, and the council, or someone, comes along and says "That lawn is not yours, it's ours." Great! They can mow it. You needn't!

OldMusicGuy

Who owns the land in front of the house? You can use the geo search on the land registry site to find out.

We live on a small development on a private road. We own the freehold but the common areas (the shared road and landscaped areas) are owned by the original developer and we all have to pay a management company to maintain them.

In our case, a small strip of our front garden and part of our drive is not owned by us, instead it forms part of the "common areas" and is owned by the developer. However, we look after this and use it as if it were part of our garden and have done for the 20 years we have lived here. So in our case it's a bit odd when you look at the plans but it has not caused us any issues.

We have just sold and some possible buyers were a bit twitchy about it, but the people who have bought aren't bothered.

peterhjohnson

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

Who owns the land in front of the house? You can use the geo search on the land registry site to find out.

Thanks. It appears to be owned by a building company that appears to have been going through liquidation for rather over 10 years! The LR shows that when the builder bought the land in 1983, there's a covenant:

(a) that it will within two years of the date hereof construct and
surface a road in position shown coloured brown on the plan to the
standards required by the local highway authority and as soon as
possible thereafter to have the same adopted as a public highway
(b) to enter into a road making Agreement under Section blah

The EA particulars say nothing about a private road so, I'm assuming the LA has adopted it - although to this amatuer, it seems odd that the builder still owns it according to the LR

davidmcn

peterhjohnson wrote: »

The EA particulars say nothing about a private road so, I'm assuming the LA has adopted it - although to this amateur, it seems odd that the builder still owns it according to the LR

No, who has the underlying registered title to the land is irrelevant (unless and until the road ceases to be a public highway). Assuming the verge is part of the adopted highway, then there isn't a problem.

Bossypants

To me, the question is how much the loss of it would impact living in the house. If there is already plenty of front garden on the deeds, I would be willing to accept the possibility of losing that last bit. If, on the other hand, losing it would put the house right by the pavement, or make the drive too small to park on, I would steer clear

jamesperrett

You may need to get hold of the full title documents from the Land Registry in order to see all the details. I was involved in buying a house that appeared to have no access to its garage when I looked at the downloaded documents. It was only after seeing the full documents that I could see the real story.

peterhjohnson

davidmcn wrote: »

No, who has the underlying registered title to the land is irrelevant (unless and until the road ceases to be a public highway).

This seems odd. You're saying that when the Council adopts the road, they don't become the owner? And that the original owner continues to own a (useless) piece of land that's now a public road?

And presumably, if the Council for some reason chooses to unadopt the road, they get it back and could (say) slap a toll on it?

Davesnave

peterhjohnson wrote: »

This seems odd. You're saying that when the Council adopts the road, they don't become the owner? And that the original owner continues to own a (useless) piece of land that's now a public road?
In 2011, local water authorities became the owners of all the shared drains in England. They don't own the land the drains travel through. Same principle.
And presumably, if the Council for some reason chooses to unadopt the road, they get it back and could (say) slap a toll on it?
In a parallel universe, perhaps. In very special circumstances things might change. For example, when I was a teenager everyone had free access to Downing Street. Now they don't. Nevertheless, the PM and the C of the E still manage to access their houses!

..............................................

davidmcn

peterhjohnson wrote: »

You're saying that when the Council adopts the road, they don't become the owner?

Yes.

And that the original owner continues to own a (useless) piece of land that's now a public road?

Yes.

(if you want to be further confused, it's also possible for a private road to be owned by the council but not be a public highway)

And presumably, if the Council for some reason chooses to unadopt the road, they get it back and could (say) slap a toll on it?

Not quite, there's a statutory process to go through, which would normally only happen where it's necessary for the road to stop being a road for the purpose of being blocked off or built on etc, so there wouldn't still be a usable road left. But if that happens then the default position is that the registered owners regain the use of their land.

peterhjohnson

So, the upshot probably is that the only people who in practice could object would be the Council.
And that there is a very very very very slight chance that the original owner would