Thanks for your reply @SydRoy. Yes it does seem like it can be quite a labyrinth and costly - especially considering we didn't get a house survey done as we were trying to save costs. That was mostly because we're doing a lot of structural work anyway so didn't really see the point, considering we got the place at a fairly good discount already. But we'd have to be really sure that we'd have a case to make it worthwhile and I'm not sure if we do. I suspect as we're an older property it's just a case of how they were built originally, before boundaries were cared about so much I guess. All of the other houses have the gutters overhanging on that side so it seems likely it's a separate airspace boundary to the ground. And you're right, we don't want to go to the trouble and then find some of our garden gets taken away! I don't think it would but I can see the risk.
Thanks for your reply @Ferdinand2000. Thanks for the info on Planning Aid and Garden Law, I'll look in to those. The current guttering will have to stay as it looks as though that's how all the houses were built originally, but for the extensions we'll be making sure nothing overhangs the boundary line. We would have to access the side from the neighbour's side regardless, as it's only accessible via their side walkway, through their gate.
Lucid
My further thoughts:
1 - If you chose to exercise your skill and judgement and not have a survey then you get the savings and take the hits. Hoped it was a positive overall . If nothing else, you will gain good experience which is worth its weight in whatever you choose to weight it in.
2 - I suggest avoiding the term "airspace boundary", as I think it has no meaning at all in property law. It means something in aerospace law relating to things like air traffic control areas. In property law a boundary is I think considered to extend from the centre of the earth to a height high enough for normal activity, as the Land Registry summarise it in section 11.7 of this page:
"Where the division is vertical, there is a presumption that the land includes both the airspace above (to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land) and everything under the soil, subject to exclusions such as coal."
It is perhaps more useful to think along the lines of public or private rights that can exist for others within your boundary, such as mineral rights, wayleaves for services, and Rights of Way, which are to the benefit of others. It is quite possible you own up to the middle of your road, but there is a dominant public right for the Highway to exist on your land and be used by the public, be maintained etc.
I bought a house a few years ago where we had to insist on the ability to put in access across another plot for future services such as internet, as otherwise we would be digging up a public footpath across a Tesco carpark and it would be very messy. As my solicitor wrote the wording and they did not quibble, the wayleave is so broad that I could probably dig a 3m tunnel under their drive to bring in a herd of elephants if I needed.
If a gutter has been there for N years, it has established a right to be there, but since it is original there may be something in the deeds somewhere giving that right or the boundary may be a few inches out. In practice it makes little difference and a situation which has existed for some time is effectively what exists, unless you can rebut it.
In practice Courts are very sensible and most of the time anyone trying to be an arse would get it painfully spanked by the judge. There are some really exquisitely contemptuous judgements out there if you go and look. They are very capable of awarding compensation of £1 and at the same time adverse costs of many thousands.
It can get more interesting if for example a top floor flat also has a lease on the roofspace, so they can extend into the roof and make a packet. Or if things exist such as "flying freeholds", where there is a difference between ground level and first floor - that is mentioned on that same page. An example could be a room over a passageway or what modern developers call a "coach house" over an access to a rear car park.
3 - I would say you need to keep an eye on having good relations so they will be kind when you want to extend and let you put scaffolding on their land without gouging you for a big fee, so you get access to build a neat wall to benefit both rather than having to build it "overhand", which will look ugly. Which is what most sensible people will do anyway.
And only sensible people read internet forums, as we all know <vbg>.
Ferdinand
“Rivers know this ... we will get there in the end.”
Posts
1 - If you chose to exercise your skill and judgement and not have a survey then you get the savings and take the hits. Hoped it was a positive overall
2 - I suggest avoiding the term "airspace boundary", as I think it has no meaning at all in property law. It means something in aerospace law relating to things like air traffic control areas. In property law a boundary is I think considered to extend from the centre of the earth to a height high enough for normal activity, as the Land Registry summarise it in section 11.7 of this page:
"Where the division is vertical, there is a presumption that the land includes both the airspace above (to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land) and everything under the soil, subject to exclusions such as coal."
It is perhaps more useful to think along the lines of public or private rights that can exist for others within your boundary, such as mineral rights, wayleaves for services, and Rights of Way, which are to the benefit of others. It is quite possible you own up to the middle of your road, but there is a dominant public right for the Highway to exist on your land and be used by the public, be maintained etc.
I bought a house a few years ago where we had to insist on the ability to put in access across another plot for future services such as internet, as otherwise we would be digging up a public footpath across a Tesco carpark and it would be very messy. As my solicitor wrote the wording and they did not quibble, the wayleave is so broad that I could probably dig a 3m tunnel under their drive to bring in a herd of elephants if I needed.
If a gutter has been there for N years, it has established a right to be there, but since it is original there may be something in the deeds somewhere giving that right or the boundary may be a few inches out. In practice it makes little difference and a situation which has existed for some time is effectively what exists, unless you can rebut it.
In practice Courts are very sensible and most of the time anyone trying to be an arse would get it painfully spanked by the judge. There are some really exquisitely contemptuous judgements out there if you go and look. They are very capable of awarding compensation of £1 and at the same time adverse costs of many thousands.
It can get more interesting if for example a top floor flat also has a lease on the roofspace, so they can extend into the roof and make a packet. Or if things exist such as "flying freeholds", where there is a difference between ground level and first floor - that is mentioned on that same page. An example could be a room over a passageway or what modern developers call a "coach house" over an access to a rear car park.
3 - I would say you need to keep an eye on having good relations so they will be kind when you want to extend and let you put scaffolding on their land without gouging you for a big fee, so you get access to build a neat wall to benefit both rather than having to build it "overhand", which will look ugly. Which is what most sensible people will do anyway.
And only sensible people read internet forums, as we all know <vbg>.
Ferdinand