Ownership of land under you

[Uncle Peter]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:38:50 -0000, Nightjar

[steve robinson]

As the householder may be you should also pay for any earthquakes ifthey are centred around your property, posibly the costs of flood damage if your grounds waterlogged to

[steve robinson]

Accurate plans historically are rare

[ARW]

Only if it is close to a mine shaft

I'll have to find out if the mineworkings were left unabandoned and unflooded. The last time I asked my source [1] I was told that mines were still pumped where needed.

[1] A pretty good source of info on these things

[Uncle Peter]

What??

[Uncle Peter]

What? If the water is on or under land that you own, you should be able to take as much as you like of it.

And the utility company should pay for what they do. Why should they get it free?

[Andy Burns]

There's been a cluster of micro-quakes around Ollerton over the past year

[Uncle Peter]

Then instead of negotiations, there could be a standard payment agreed by the government, like with compulsory purchase of land for electricity pylons placed in a farmer's field. They get paid for that.

[Sam Plusnet]

Not to mention the flood of ambulance-chasing firms who promised everyone loads-a-dosh if their house was anywhere near a mining area.

[Sam Plusnet]

But fair's fair. You could also claim ownership of any aircraft that happened to pass overhead.

There might be a lot of counter-claims mind you.

[Tim Watts]

That's why I was careful to mention "large".

I have a 6" shared sewer under my garden (not house). It is not on any plans - but it's presence is mentioned in the deeds and also a covenant (that I must not break it essentially).

However, if it were perhaps a 2' or bigger major sewer serving dozens of properties I'd damn well expect the water company to know exactly where it is :)

[Uncle Peter]

It should be up to a certain height. If an aircraft passed 10 metres over my roof, I'd want to know why, and probably want money for the new roof tiles.

[John]

"Rod Speed" wrote

So when does it become an issue if I want to dig down and build a duck pond, or something rather deeper - maybe install a radio mast or something similar?

John.

[steve robinson]

About 10 years ago in Brum they found a sewer next to a block of flats they were knocking down the flats had been thier since the 1960's peviously the area was back to back housing.

Until the digger broke through no one new the sewer was there apparently it was big enough to drive a car through al brick

[Sam Plusnet]

Most mines had workings which stretched out for miles & miles.

Most of them even had small gauge railways which took you part way to the working faces but you'd have to walk the last mile.

I come from an area which originally had three separate mines, where the pit-heads were around 4 miles apart. They amalgamated the workings underground & closed two of the shafts - except as ventilation & emergency escape routes.

All those tunnels & galleries collapse over time, & that produces subsidence[1].

[1] Mines up in the North East ran out under the North Sea for a fair few miles - I bet no-one complains about subsidence there.

[Nightjar]

Not necessarily:

[Uncle Peter]

What if those people want to build a basement in the future?

You do if it's actually in your land. On the border doesn't really affect you.

[Roger Chapman]

Land owners get paid a wayleave for every pylon or electricity pole on their land. The amounts are quite quite modest I believe.

[Uncle Peter]

A farmer once mentioned it. He was grumbling about having to turn the tractor round it, but I'm sure he said he was getting paid about what he would lose in crop area.

[Alex Heney]

Because I am not stupid enough to believe that land ownership automatically extends (or should extend) above or below the surface to any great extent.