Peter Burgess
New member
It's interesting? Intellectual exercise?
BCA Council Meeting - CRoW Discussions
- Thread starter BCA Chair
- Start date
Don't forget that you may own the land under your house but not own the mineral rights, which are separate. (Which is why a farmer may have a company drilling for oil or gas on his land and is unable to anything about it despite not wanting them to do it.)
Cavers have had arguments in the past as to whether the owner of the mineral rights in such a case owned the walls of the cave, whereas the landowner owns the space which constitutes the "cave".
It was one of those "down at the pub and you want to have an argument" sort of things - fun, but we got nowhere.
Cavers have had arguments in the past as to whether the owner of the mineral rights in such a case owned the walls of the cave, whereas the landowner owns the space which constitutes the "cave".
It was one of those "down at the pub and you want to have an argument" sort of things - fun, but we got nowhere.
Peter Burgess
New member
Houseowner I am.
Peter Burgess
New member
Indeed, as there is no obvious clear cut point at which the low energy environment that needs protection actually starts. Apart from when a gate is present, of course!
royfellows
Well-known member
Jenny P said:
Jenny, nail on the head.
This is my opinion after studying all available case law I could find. But remember that as I have said before the law is very complex. If minerals had been separated, called a "severance", at some sale of land, and the description in the conveyance is "all mines and minerals" this is a catch all for everything economically extractable bar peat ( read topsoil) and would include limestone. Definition of a mineral has to be read in the context of the document but is generally covered by the definition given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which supersedes all previous definitions from case law.
However, mineral definition can have exclusions within a conveyance, so if the minerals are separately owned the limestone may be property of the landowner if this was excluded at the point of severance.
A bit more comment
Land ownership was always taken to be from the centre of the earth all the way up to heaven.
The 'brocard' as it was described by the Law Lords, was examined in Bocardo V Star Energy. Obviously the Civil Aviation Act 1936 challenges the heaven bit, and the Lordships arrived at a height above the surface sufficient for 'quiet enjoyment'
They also challenged the centre of the earth bit in the light of the fact that we now know that below a certain depth the earth is a liquid mass.
Anyone who reads the transcript of the hearing is counselled caution in that each of the Law Lords covers the same ground before they reach consensus, so don't just read down until you reach the bit you want.
A lot of this has been previously covered in another thread.
Just one final bit. Mineral ownership carries a lot of implied rights, including the basic right of access.
Therefore is a piece of land has a separate mineral ownership then the mineral owner has all rights of access above and below ground same as landowner, and this would include a natural cave.
Alex
Well-known member
I guess if we go off what the water board says: When there are leaks under your house it is your responsibility and you pay for all repairs which I guess means you must owe the land under the house too. What this means for CROW and the like I have no idea as I lost the plot ages ago.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
off topic I know but I understood that when the water companies were privatised, one feature included was the householder now owns all the pipe work from the water main in the street into the house and the sewer pipes all the way back to the main sewer, where ever that may be located in the street. So I (well my house insurance) got charged for a sewer problem out in the road. But Ofwat seems to think differently, see http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/supply-pipes/.Brains said:Only to a certain age, pre 1920(?) it is the water boards resposibility to the u-bend... saved me money in the past knowing that
Water supplier is responsible for stop tap (typically in pavement) and upstream supply pipework; supply pipework downstream of stop tap is householder's responsibility.
Responsibility for foul and storm water drains is more complex - and depends on whether or not they have been adopted by the local authority.
Aren't we wonderfully off-topic?
Responsibility for foul and storm water drains is more complex - and depends on whether or not they have been adopted by the local authority.
Aren't we wonderfully off-topic?
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Speaking as one who is contributing to it, Damian's life is a bit hectic at the moment with other more pressing demands. So I am afraid he is not able to show his usually efficient self and get the draft minutes out as fast as he normally does and no doubt would wish. I will therefore plead on Damian's behalf for patience.mudman said:
(And there I was hoping I could steer the topic off thread.)
I actually finished them as a matter of absolute priority and since then have been waiting for them to pass through the usual stages of "vetting" prior to publication. Unfortunately I have no control over this, so they will be ready when they are ready. Sorry!Bob Mehew said:
cap n chris
Well-known member
What's with the parentheses quotes, and four question marks?
