Show us your real estate pawn (Vol 5)
Discussion
The Don of Croy said:
Pit Pony said:
Bonefish Blues said:
The first one is an old friend - designed by the first owner who made a fortune in bimetal switches IIRC?
STRIX Plc. Always time for a thread diversion when it's interesting...or just big numbers.
Voldemort said:
I hope these haven't been on here before...
Both in The Isle of Man
………
or this at £17.75m with 932 acres
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/140015234#/...
I’d be slightly concerned that lump at the top of the hill might break off! Both in The Isle of Man
………
or this at £17.75m with 932 acres
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/140015234#/...
Halitosis said:
RSTurboPaul said:
May I ask for a summary of the Public Right of Way thing?
I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
Just my understanding of the story, not a lawyer/expert, and Scottish law, so no doubt differs to England/Wales.I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
A footpath (to be fair a muddy pathway through woodland) had long since existed and was marked on Ordnance Survey and other maps - indeed I've just checked on the OS website and the footpath is still marked. A small development of 6 (very nice) houses were built perhaps 10/15 years ago and the back garden of one of those houses appears to include a short section of the footpath route. Only half of the back garden was initially fenced by the developers - presumably so users of the footpath could pass, but a few years later the house owners petitioned the court or local council (not sure of the process) to fully fence their land - thereby cutting the right of way - on the grounds of privacy/security. The court/council found in their favour so access was blocked and the full garden was fenced in.
I think the owners actually sold soon thereafter. The court/council's decision was sadly wrong in my view as undoubtedly the owners were fully aware of the public right of way when they first purchased the house/land.
Anyway - none of this impacted the nearby mansion mentioned on this thread, which is a little way up the (private) road.
From what I understand of Scottish law, there is no such thing as trespassing and public retain a right to roam, as long as they don't cause damage/harm. There are limitations though in respect of gardens and proximity to homes.
I am surprised by the ruling. Perhaps the Right to Roam technically now mean 'any route is possible outside of private dwelling curtilages/gardens' and therefore there is less need to retain historic routes across what would have been 'restricted' land beforehand?
I'm not sure they would have won their case in England!
Bonefish Blues said:
Wrong thread for this.thegreenhell said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Wrong thread for this.Bonefish Blues said:
For the nightmare thread.Bonefish Blues said:
thegreenhell said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Wrong thread for this..
Bonefish Blues said:
Which one? I'm guessing Nicky. Porsche-worm said:
Bonefish Blues said:
For the nightmare thread.
phil_cardiff said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Which one? I'm guessing Nicky. RSTurboPaul said:
Halitosis said:
RSTurboPaul said:
May I ask for a summary of the Public Right of Way thing?
I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
Just my understanding of the story, not a lawyer/expert, and Scottish law, so no doubt differs to England/Wales.I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
A footpath (to be fair a muddy pathway through woodland) had long since existed and was marked on Ordnance Survey and other maps - indeed I've just checked on the OS website and the footpath is still marked. A small development of 6 (very nice) houses were built perhaps 10/15 years ago and the back garden of one of those houses appears to include a short section of the footpath route. Only half of the back garden was initially fenced by the developers - presumably so users of the footpath could pass, but a few years later the house owners petitioned the court or local council (not sure of the process) to fully fence their land - thereby cutting the right of way - on the grounds of privacy/security. The court/council found in their favour so access was blocked and the full garden was fenced in.
I think the owners actually sold soon thereafter. The court/council's decision was sadly wrong in my view as undoubtedly the owners were fully aware of the public right of way when they first purchased the house/land.
Anyway - none of this impacted the nearby mansion mentioned on this thread, which is a little way up the (private) road.
From what I understand of Scottish law, there is no such thing as trespassing and public retain a right to roam, as long as they don't cause damage/harm. There are limitations though in respect of gardens and proximity to homes.
I am surprised by the ruling. Perhaps the Right to Roam technically now mean 'any route is possible outside of private dwelling curtilages/gardens' and therefore there is less need to retain historic routes across what would have been 'restricted' land beforehand?
I'm not sure they would have won their case in England!
Bonefish Blues said:
phil_cardiff said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Which one? I'm guessing Nicky. Pit Pony said:
To be fair, I think rights of way officers in most councils would be happy to grant any (most?) changes in route, as long as the start and the end are more or less in the same place, and the quality of the path and drainage is reasonable.
Oh crikey no!I know of farmers who've tried for years to swap a PRoW cutting straight across a field with a properly demarcated and prepared footpath around the edge, with zero joy.
Long, long ago, I somehow ended up running the PRoW maintenance contract serving the local County Council. Sticking an oak fingerboard signpost up in the middle of a field where two PRoWs intersect always seemed like a bloody odd thing to do. The response was along the lines of 'it's a bloody odd thing to do, but it's been done for generations so we're sticking with it'.
Pit Pony said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Halitosis said:
RSTurboPaul said:
May I ask for a summary of the Public Right of Way thing?
I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
Just my understanding of the story, not a lawyer/expert, and Scottish law, so no doubt differs to England/Wales.I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
A footpath (to be fair a muddy pathway through woodland) had long since existed and was marked on Ordnance Survey and other maps - indeed I've just checked on the OS website and the footpath is still marked. A small development of 6 (very nice) houses were built perhaps 10/15 years ago and the back garden of one of those houses appears to include a short section of the footpath route. Only half of the back garden was initially fenced by the developers - presumably so users of the footpath could pass, but a few years later the house owners petitioned the court or local council (not sure of the process) to fully fence their land - thereby cutting the right of way - on the grounds of privacy/security. The court/council found in their favour so access was blocked and the full garden was fenced in.
I think the owners actually sold soon thereafter. The court/council's decision was sadly wrong in my view as undoubtedly the owners were fully aware of the public right of way when they first purchased the house/land.
Anyway - none of this impacted the nearby mansion mentioned on this thread, which is a little way up the (private) road.
From what I understand of Scottish law, there is no such thing as trespassing and public retain a right to roam, as long as they don't cause damage/harm. There are limitations though in respect of gardens and proximity to homes.
I am surprised by the ruling. Perhaps the Right to Roam technically now mean 'any route is possible outside of private dwelling curtilages/gardens' and therefore there is less need to retain historic routes across what would have been 'restricted' land beforehand?
I'm not sure they would have won their case in England!
Escort3500 said:
Pit Pony said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Halitosis said:
RSTurboPaul said:
May I ask for a summary of the Public Right of Way thing?
I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
Just my understanding of the story, not a lawyer/expert, and Scottish law, so no doubt differs to England/Wales.I thought they were basically impossible to get rid of (or even move) if/once historic use had been shown!
A footpath (to be fair a muddy pathway through woodland) had long since existed and was marked on Ordnance Survey and other maps - indeed I've just checked on the OS website and the footpath is still marked. A small development of 6 (very nice) houses were built perhaps 10/15 years ago and the back garden of one of those houses appears to include a short section of the footpath route. Only half of the back garden was initially fenced by the developers - presumably so users of the footpath could pass, but a few years later the house owners petitioned the court or local council (not sure of the process) to fully fence their land - thereby cutting the right of way - on the grounds of privacy/security. The court/council found in their favour so access was blocked and the full garden was fenced in.
I think the owners actually sold soon thereafter. The court/council's decision was sadly wrong in my view as undoubtedly the owners were fully aware of the public right of way when they first purchased the house/land.
Anyway - none of this impacted the nearby mansion mentioned on this thread, which is a little way up the (private) road.
From what I understand of Scottish law, there is no such thing as trespassing and public retain a right to roam, as long as they don't cause damage/harm. There are limitations though in respect of gardens and proximity to homes.
I am surprised by the ruling. Perhaps the Right to Roam technically now mean 'any route is possible outside of private dwelling curtilages/gardens' and therefore there is less need to retain historic routes across what would have been 'restricted' land beforehand?
I'm not sure they would have won their case in England!
People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
snobetter said:
People who buy houses next to pubs and then complain about there being a pub nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
Yes, because all of the discussion has been not about reducing the availability (as is the case with your other examples), but changing the provision in a way that negatively impacts nobody but benefits someone. People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
Sway said:
snobetter said:
People who buy houses next to pubs and then complain about there being a pub nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
Yes, because all of the discussion has been not about reducing the availability (as is the case with your other examples), but changing the provision in a way that negatively impacts nobody but benefits someone. People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
snobetter said:
Sway said:
snobetter said:
People who buy houses next to pubs and then complain about there being a pub nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
Yes, because all of the discussion has been not about reducing the availability (as is the case with your other examples), but changing the provision in a way that negatively impacts nobody but benefits someone. People who buy a house next to a racetrack then complain about the racetrack nearby are viewed as...?
People who buy property with a right of way through it and then complain about it are viewed differently?
Agree - wild camping on Dartmoor is special, and needs preserving.
O/T - but I'm forming the opinion there should probably be a legal distinction between normal wild camping, and 'vanlife wild camping' which is something completely different.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff