Boundary Hedge - Legal Implications?
Discussion
Hi,
I’ve got 4 acres of field which I’ve turned into a wildflower meadow. On one side is my neighbour who built their house about 5 years ago. They share a boundary with me that’s about 60m long.
About 4 months ago the council informed them that they had not met their planning obligations and needed to plant a hedge (hawthorn etc.) along the 60m border. That’s good for me as I would have planted a hedge there anyway to provide privacy.
The neighbour organised the planting to be done a few weeks back and on that morning I get a phone call from the neighbours wife asking is it OK where the hedge was being planted. It turns out that they had arranged for it to be planted on my side of the boundary (outside of their mesh fence) because they had already planted stuff in their garden and the only way to put it on their side would be to dig up a lot of their plants.
I told them that it was an unfair question to ask me if it was OK because they should plant on their side. However, because it’s around 60m away from my house, intrudes by only a foot or so into my land which is huge and was something I would have planted anyway, I said OK.
But after a few weeks I’ve started thinking, is their any negative implication for me? Basically they have planted on my land - can they claim that the permission to plant gives them any right over the land in any way? Is there anything else I should be aware of?
I only ask because my property is on the market and need to be sure I have not opened up any cans of worms.
Just to end, neighbours are lovely and we get on great but he sometimes his social skills in understanding acceptable behaviour is sometimes a little lacking.
Cheers
I’ve got 4 acres of field which I’ve turned into a wildflower meadow. On one side is my neighbour who built their house about 5 years ago. They share a boundary with me that’s about 60m long.
About 4 months ago the council informed them that they had not met their planning obligations and needed to plant a hedge (hawthorn etc.) along the 60m border. That’s good for me as I would have planted a hedge there anyway to provide privacy.
The neighbour organised the planting to be done a few weeks back and on that morning I get a phone call from the neighbours wife asking is it OK where the hedge was being planted. It turns out that they had arranged for it to be planted on my side of the boundary (outside of their mesh fence) because they had already planted stuff in their garden and the only way to put it on their side would be to dig up a lot of their plants.
I told them that it was an unfair question to ask me if it was OK because they should plant on their side. However, because it’s around 60m away from my house, intrudes by only a foot or so into my land which is huge and was something I would have planted anyway, I said OK.
But after a few weeks I’ve started thinking, is their any negative implication for me? Basically they have planted on my land - can they claim that the permission to plant gives them any right over the land in any way? Is there anything else I should be aware of?
I only ask because my property is on the market and need to be sure I have not opened up any cans of worms.
Just to end, neighbours are lovely and we get on great but he sometimes his social skills in understanding acceptable behaviour is sometimes a little lacking.
Cheers
a boundary is a boundary and presumably marked on various deeds / maps / etc.?
so if he has planted in your field with your permission he has basically paid to put in your hedge...
I would drop him a note:
- thank you for what you have done...
- clarifying where the boundary still lies...
so if he has planted in your field with your permission he has basically paid to put in your hedge...
I would drop him a note:
- thank you for what you have done...
- clarifying where the boundary still lies...
Maybe a tiny bit cheeky, but they aren't gaining a bigger garden (well maybe just the hedges width worth if they were to have had it on their side)
As long as they haven't moved the mesh fence to the other side, I would just think of it as they have gifted you a fence right where you were about to pay put one anyway.
As long as they haven't moved the mesh fence to the other side, I would just think of it as they have gifted you a fence right where you were about to pay put one anyway.
akirk said:
a boundary is a boundary and presumably marked on various deeds / maps / etc.?
I once dealt with a site in the Malverns, where the boundary between two existing dwellings was defined by a hedge. We were developing in the (obviously very large) former garden of one of the properties.The property on the far side of the hedge had kept their side well cut back. The previous landowner on our side had never touched it; as a result, the hedge had grown asymmetrically and the centerline had shifted a couple of metres into our site.
The Land Registry absolutely would not accept any evidence comparing previous title plans to the topographical survey, and insisted that the new title boundaries for the plots being conveyed from our site must be on the centreline of the hedge as it currently stood, with the result that:
a) We lost a couple of metres from the gardens, and;
b) It created a strip of 'no mans land' where the titles didn't join up with the title of the land on the far side of the hedge (the LR insisted that this would be resolved the next time the neighbouring property was sold).
Absolute madness, but a good example of how irrational and intransigent the LR can be, at times.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 24th April 09:42
TooMany2cvs said:
The boundary hasn't moved. All that's happened is that you've allowed them to plant some hawthorns on your land, just inside the boundary.
But, as above, the LR are quite capable of deciding that the centreline of the hedge is the boundary, and that it has moved (or was previously shown in the wrong location on an earlier title). This is particularly the case if there are no other obvious boundary features on the ground.I've lost arguments numerous times with the LR, when they have said that features on the ground take precedence over LR/OS records.
Equus said:
I once dealt with a site in the Malverns, where the boundary between two existing dwellings was defined by a hedge. We were developing in the (obviously very large) former garden of one of the properties.
The property on the far side of the hedge had kept their side well cut back. The previous landowner on our side had never touched it; as a result, the hedge had grown asymmetrically and the centerline had shifted a couple of metres into our site.
The Land Registry absolutely would not accept any evidence comparing previous title plans to the topographical survey, and insisted that the new title boundaries for the plots being conveyed from our site must be on the centreline of the hedge as it currently stood, with the result that:
a) We lost a couple of metres from the gardens, and;
b) It created a strip of 'no mans land' where the titles didn't join up with the title of the land on the far side of the hedge (the LR insisted that this would be resolved the next time the neighbouring property was sold).
Absolute madness, but a good example of how irrational and intransigent the LR can be, at times.
The Land Registry title plans don't show definitive boundaries: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-re...The property on the far side of the hedge had kept their side well cut back. The previous landowner on our side had never touched it; as a result, the hedge had grown asymmetrically and the centerline had shifted a couple of metres into our site.
The Land Registry absolutely would not accept any evidence comparing previous title plans to the topographical survey, and insisted that the new title boundaries for the plots being conveyed from our site must be on the centreline of the hedge as it currently stood, with the result that:
a) We lost a couple of metres from the gardens, and;
b) It created a strip of 'no mans land' where the titles didn't join up with the title of the land on the far side of the hedge (the LR insisted that this would be resolved the next time the neighbouring property was sold).
Absolute madness, but a good example of how irrational and intransigent the LR can be, at times.
Presumably in the case you refer to the trunks of the hedge hadn't moved. So the location in which it was planted would be easily ascertainable and from that you could work out the actual legal boundary; see para 4 of the Land Reg practice guide linked above.
Equus said:
TooMany2cvs said:
The boundary hasn't moved. All that's happened is that you've allowed them to plant some hawthorns on your land, just inside the boundary.
But, as above, the LR are quite capable of deciding that the centreline of the hedge is the boundary, and that it has moved (or was previously shown in the wrong location on an earlier title). This is particularly the case if there are no other obvious boundary features on the ground.I've lost arguments numerous times with the LR, when they have said that features on the ground take precedence over LR/OS records.
Jobbo said:
Presumably in the case you refer to the trunks of the hedge hadn't moved.
In that instance, the hedge was too dense and thick to plot a boundary line from the 'trunks' (stems) of the individual bushes. The LR insisted on taking the centreline of the overall 'footprint' of the hedge as being the boundary.I've had bad experiences where there have been twin boundary features, too - as per the link you provided, the LR's stance is that their title plans and the OS maps they are based upon are not definitive, and that a 'reasonable interpretation' needs to be made in some cases.
Where that falls flat on its face is that the LR's 'reasonable' is sometimes how they choose to interpret it, and can fly in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary. They do seem to have a habit of not backing down on their initial interpretation of anything, no matter how obviously wrong it is, and can be extremely painful to deal with.
I'm not sure I'd be as thrilled as the OP about being given the maintenance liability of a hedge (and if the maintenance liability remains with his neighbour, it then raises future issues of adverse possession), but each to his own!
Equus said:
Where that falls flat on its face is that the LR's 'reasonable' is sometimes how they choose to interpret it, and can fly in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary. They do seem to have a habit of not backing down on their initial interpretation of anything, no matter how obviously wrong it is, and can be extremely painful to deal with.
The Land Registry doesn't define the boundary though, as per my link to their practice guide above. They are not a forum for determining boundary disputes. In your case, if the landowner had a justifiable claim to own more than was shown on the Land Registry title plan then he could resolve that through the courts, Lands Tribunal (as it used to be called) or other dispute resolution method. If he didn't have a justifiable claim, or couldn't be bothered to argue it, why should the Land Registry step in to do so?Equus said:
In that instance, the hedge was too dense and thick to plot a boundary line from the 'trunks' (stems) of the individual bushes. The LR insisted on taking the centreline of the overall 'footprint' of the hedge as being the boundary.
I've had bad experiences where there have been twin boundary features, too - as per the link you provided, the LR's stance is that their title plans and the OS maps they are based upon are not definitive, and that a 'reasonable interpretation' needs to be made in some cases.
Where that falls flat on its face is that the LR's 'reasonable' is sometimes how they choose to interpret it, and can fly in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary. They do seem to have a habit of not backing down on their initial interpretation of anything, no matter how obviously wrong it is, and can be extremely painful to deal with.
I'm not sure I'd be as thrilled as the OP about being given the maintenance liability of a hedge (and if the maintenance liability remains with his neighbour, it then raises future issues of adverse possession), but each to his own!
What would have happened if you'd trimmed the hedge, or was it too late as the question had already been asked?I've had bad experiences where there have been twin boundary features, too - as per the link you provided, the LR's stance is that their title plans and the OS maps they are based upon are not definitive, and that a 'reasonable interpretation' needs to be made in some cases.
Where that falls flat on its face is that the LR's 'reasonable' is sometimes how they choose to interpret it, and can fly in the face of all rational evidence to the contrary. They do seem to have a habit of not backing down on their initial interpretation of anything, no matter how obviously wrong it is, and can be extremely painful to deal with.
I'm not sure I'd be as thrilled as the OP about being given the maintenance liability of a hedge (and if the maintenance liability remains with his neighbour, it then raises future issues of adverse possession), but each to his own!
Has the OPs neighbour actually complied with the planning condition if they've not planted a hedge on the land the planning condition applies to or on the boundary?
Jobbo said:
...if the landowner had a justifiable claim to own more than was shown on the Land Registry title plan then he could resolve that through the courts, Lands Tribunal (as it used to be called) or other dispute resolution method.
We weren't claiming that we owned more than was shown on the previous title plan, but the LR chose to re-define the boundary line to conform to current survey of the features on the ground.Yes, we could have chosen to resolve the issue through the Lands Tribunal, but that in itself is not a cheap or easy process. Ultimately, it was more expedient to cut our losses, and accept the LR's redefinition of the title.
paulrockliffe said:
What would have happened if you'd trimmed the hedge, or was it too late as the question had already been asked?
The question wasn't even asked. The first we knew about it was when the LR rejected our conveyance plans, as the Ordnance Survey had been out and had decided to plot a 'feature' line down the centreline of the hedge.paulrockliffe said:
Has the OPs neighbour actually complied with the planning condition if they've not planted a hedge on the land the planning condition applies to or on the boundary?
This is another valid question - though it's a problem for the OP's neighbour, rather than the OP.Obviously, any Planning Permission is fundamentally defined by the red line boundary used on the application drawings. You can't (except under specific circumstances, such as off-site highways or drainage works, which are governed by separate legal agreements tied to the consent) comply with the consent by implementing work outside that boundary.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff