Land registry and title plan boundaries

tbfc

Hi, hope someone with Land Registry knowledge can assist. I have a general query with regard to a title plan which shows a property and land relating to the same title number. However they are bisected by a public footpath, which is shown on the title plan but not on a mapsearch screenshot. Does the footpath create a natural boundary between the property and land, and if so should their be separate land registry title numbers? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Section62

tbfc said:

Hi, hope someone with Land Registry knowledge can assist. I have a general query with regard to a title plan which shows a property and land relating to the same title number. However they are bisected by a public footpath, which is shown on the title plan but not on a mapsearch screenshot. Does the footpath create a natural boundary between the property and land, and if so should their be separate land registry title numbers? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

If it isn't land owned by the highway authority or someone else, then the land the path is on would normally be part of one of the adjacent title(s).  Public footpaths are typically on privately owned land.  Because landowners prefer people to walk along the edge of fields etc, public footpaths also often run adjacent to the boundary of a parcel of land.

In other words, the answer to your question could be 'yes or no'.

You'll probably need to share a copy of the plan (or get the LR rep to help without sharing identifiable details openly) if there is a specific complication in your case.

user1977

A physical boundary within a title does not imply that the title ought to be subdivided - perfectly normal for e.g. a landlord to have one title covering a whole estate, which may contain lots of physically bounded plots.

tbfc

Thanks for your comments, Section 62 and users 1977 - out of expediency I attach a suitably redacted image, with the footpath shown in green.

tbfc

Any views would be appreciated

user1977

Might help if you explained why you're asking?

tbfc

Yes indeed - because the land to the right of the footpath (in green) was deemed to be a square with public access and appears to have been acquired by the freeholder of a block of flats to the left of the footpath and incorporated into the overall boundary (as shown in red). All properties which overlook the square contribute to it's maintenance by way of an estate rent charge, which is fine, however the cost has increased markedly year on year and it is not being properly maintained, ie weeds and broken slabs.

user1977

tbfc said:

the land to the right of the footpath (in green) was deemed to be a square with public access and appears to have been acquired by the freeholder of a block of flats to the left of the footpath and incorporated into the overall boundary (as shown in red). All properties which overlook the square contribute to it's maintenance by way of an estate rent charge, which is fine, however the cost has increased markedly year on year and it is not being properly maintained, ie weeds and broken slabs.

What difference would it make if it was on a separate title number though? Either the properties are meant to contribute towards its maintenance or they aren't.

Section62

tbfc said:

Yes indeed - because the land to the right of the footpath (in green) was deemed to be a square with public access and appears to have been acquired by the freeholder of a block of flats to the left of the footpath and incorporated into the overall boundary (as shown in red). All properties which overlook the square contribute to it's maintenance by way of an estate rent charge, which is fine, however the cost has increased markedly year on year and it is not being properly maintained, ie weeds and broken slabs.

Neither the path nor the square appear to be adopted, so I'd expect the land to be privately owned.  The square has also been gated from the adjacent highway - the impression I'd get from that is the land is intended for restricted use, not for full public access.

Otherwise I agree with user1977, the ownership of the land is largely unconnected to responsibility for paying for the maintenance of it.

canaldumidi

tbfc said:

.....a title plan which shows a property and land relating to the same title number. However they are bisected by a public footpath, which is shown on the title plan but not on a mapsearch screenshot. Does the footpath create a natural boundary between the property and land, and if so should their be separate land registry title numbers? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Well yes, by definition the footpath creates a natural physical boundary  but that in itself has no legal implication. There are 3 potential ownership arrangements all perfectly valid

* 3 separate titles for the property, footpath and land. These could be owned the different people or all owned by the same person

* 2 titles eg property plus footpath/land. Again any combination of ownership is possible

* 1 title incorporating all 3 areas.

What is more relevant here is what covenants or other agreements are in place giving rights (eg access)  to others (eg properties overlooking the land) and/or obligations (eg maintenance costs.

You'd do better to quote the relevant documents rather than focus on the Plan or ownership.

tbfc

Thanks to everybody for your views and input - the key issue was whether the footpath bisecting the areas was relevant, which has now been addressed by your responses, which is much appreciated.