Who owns a public footpath?

Section62

moneysavinghero said:

Not quite so simple and not quite so singular.
The surface and so much of the soil below and the air above as is necessary for the control, protection and maintenance of the highway is owned the by highways authority. The rest is owned by the landowner.

It isn't simple, but for a different reason to that.

The text in bold is not technically correct. It should read "vested in the".

In highway law vesting is a complex concept, but is a form of quasi-ownership, perhaps best compared to a lease without any end date. The rights of the freeholder are severely limited whilst the highway continues to exist, but if the highway is stopped up then all rights in the land revert in full and unconditionally to the freeholder.

Section 263 of the Highways Act 1980 is the modern-day source.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/263

Obviously in some cases the highway authority is the freeholder as well.

Beenie

No, only the field in the diagram was glebe land. 

ripplyuk

It’d be a real shame if someone sprayed those leylandii with glyphosate or similar, before they get a chance to become towering, majestic trees. 

moneysavinghero

Section62 said:

moneysavinghero said:

Not quite so simple and not quite so singular.
The surface and so much of the soil below and the air above as is necessary for the control, protection and maintenance of the highway is owned the by highways authority. The rest is owned by the landowner.

It isn't simple, but for a different reason to that.

The text in bold is not technically correct. It should read "vested in the".

In highway law vesting is a complex concept, but is a form of quasi-ownership, perhaps best compared to a lease without any end date. The rights of the freeholder are severely limited whilst the highway continues to exist, but if the highway is stopped up then all rights in the land revert in full and unconditionally to the freeholder.

Section 263 of the Highways Act 1980 is the modern-day source.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/263

Obviously in some cases the highway authority is the freeholder as well.

Yes that is correct. I think this explains it well:
http://www.pittecroft.org.uk/ownership/ownershipofpaths.htm

AdrianC

Beenie said:

If a path runs through your land, then I agree it's clearer than my situation. The path does not cross anyone's land, it runs between houses and their gardens.

Ah, but it DOES cross somebody's land... Just not yours. And not your neighbours'. You don't know whose - because it isn't registered at Land Registry...

But SOMEBODY owns it. They may not even know it themselves... Back in the day, ownership was paper deeds. They got lost or destroyed. Somebody dies, their stuff gets inherited - but they might not know everything they've inherited, if it isn't documented... But the land remains...

Perhaps the glebe land ran all the way to the road, and those four plots were parcelled off and sold individually, with the track remaining in diocesan ownership? But they sold the field? Is THAT registered? Or is it just let?

Beenie

Nothing like that, afaik. The two dwellings on the main road were a school and a pub, both with lots of land. The land behind these dwellings was eventually sold in the 1960s to build the two houses which use the track/lane/public footpath to gain access to the road.

RAS

Who previously owned the land the houses were built on? Or the pub and the school? If the school was a Victorian build, the track owner may well be the person who sold the land for the school.

AdrianC

Beenie said:

The land behind these dwellings was eventually sold in the 1960s to build the two houses which use the track/lane/public footpath to gain access to the road.

Perhaps it was sold as a single strip, which was then divided into three - one house sold, lane strip retained, other house sold. In which case, it may still be owned by the development company, or their successors. Or if they went under, it may be owned by HMRC in lieu of taxes. Or...

Continental

@Beenie - you stated that you are in the middle of a Conservation Area. It may be worthwhile contacting your local Conservation Officer. Leyllandi trees are not native to the UK and the Conservation Officer may decide that the trees have to come down as he/she may deem that they are “not in keeping” with the local area and detrimental to the visual aspect.

We live in a Conservation area (albeit in a Grade II listed house) and we had to get permission for a monster sized laurel tree to be removed which was in the garden when we moved into our house. There was no problem with our request being granted as the tree is not native to Britain and certainly had no TPO (Tree Protection Order) on it.

Come to think of it, I’m wondering if Leyllandi are considered as “High Hedges”? 

A good source of info on garde/boundary problems are the forums and discussion topics  on www.gardenlaw.co.uk

Hope this helps!

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

Beenie said:

If a path runs through your land, then I agree it's clearer than my situation. The path does not cross anyone's land, it runs between houses and their gardens.

Ah, but it DOES cross somebody's land... Just not yours. And not your neighbours'. You don't know whose - because it isn't registered at Land Registry...

But SOMEBODY owns it. They may not even know it themselves... Back in the day, ownership was paper deeds. They got lost or destroyed. Somebody dies, their stuff gets inherited - but they might not know everything they've inherited, if it isn't documented... But the land remains...

Perhaps the glebe land ran all the way to the road, and those four plots were parcelled off and sold individually, with the track remaining in diocesan ownership? But they sold the field? Is THAT registered? Or is it just let?

Not only that but someone might KNOW that they DO own it, from their own deeds, but don't wish to have any responsibility for it so they just keep quiet and without access to the paper deeds no one can ever find out for sure.

It's not an entirely uncommon situation where a previously large estate is divided up and sold off.  Each bit sold off is eventually registered but some bits remain unregistered and effectively of unknown ownership.  I believe that in such cases the land ownership would revert to the crown estate, though I'm not sure if they would become liable for its maintenance.