Swildons to Wookey

[wormster]

A colleague at work asked me a rather interesting question today:

"If Swildons and Wookey are (eventually) connected, who owns the cave passage, Would it be the "Owners" of Swildons, or Wookey Hole?"

Get yer teeth into that one you Barrack Lawyers!

 

[graham]

Piece of piss. The particular piece of cave passage would be owned by whoever owned the land above it.

I can back this up with examples if you wish. 

Further, ownership of a piece of land does not automatically confer a right of access to it across somebody else's land. That presumption of access does exist in some European countries, but not in England.

 

[Les W]

In the UK the cave passage is owned by the owners of the overlying land

 

[robjones]

The particular piece of cave passage would be owned by whoever owned the land above it.

In the UK the cave passage is owned by the owners of the overlying land

Unless the mineral rights are in separate ownership to the surface, in which case the underground passages belong to whoever owns the minerals. 

The details of mineral ownership can vary considerably. Sometimes only certain minerals are owned. If the bulk limestone is in separate ownership to the surface, then the underground passages will be in separate ownership to the surface. But if only, say, the metalliferous ores are in separate ownership to the surface, then the underground passages will remain in the same ownership as the surface. The precise wording - and the historic interpretation of that wording - of the historic deeds will determine the details.   

 

[mikem]

but unless they blast a passage down to "their cave" most of them won't be able to control access...

Mike

 

[braveduck]

Blasting a passage down to "their cave" seems to be coming more common these days !

 

[graham]

The particular piece of cave passage would be owned by whoever owned the land above it.

In the UK the cave passage is owned by the owners of the overlying land

Unless the mineral rights are in separate ownership to the surface, in which case the underground passages belong to whoever owns the minerals. 

Since when have air and/or water been considered minerals?

And it remains the case that such ownership does not confer a right of access.

 

[robjones]

Case law established that voids within the subsurface are owned by the owner of that subsurface, consequently caves, whether air-filled or water-filled, are owned by whoever owns the minerals.

 

[graham]

Well, I speak as someone who holds a lease specifically for caves beneath a certain piece of land. I doubt anyone else in this discussion can say the same.

 

[pete h]

Can I claim it as I am the only person to have done it on a bike. 

 

[cavemanmike]

Well, I speak as someone who holds a lease specifically for caves beneath a certain piece of land. I doubt anyone else in this discussion can say the same.

give that man a pat on the back

 

[graham]

Well, I speak as someone who holds a lease specifically for caves beneath a certain piece of land. I doubt anyone else in this discussion can say the same.

give that man a pat on the back

Thank you.  Nice to see that someone recognises appropriate experience.

 

[owd git]

I'm so glad sarcasm is so often missed.

 

[cap n chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo

 

[graham]

I'm so glad sarcasm is so often missed.

Ah, but who missed it?  :-\