Ownership of land under you

[Uncle Peter]

I always thought you owned all the land from your house down to the centre of the earth. But what about if you have the London Underground underneath you?

[harryagain]

[Brian Gaff]

Limited ownership only, at least in this country. I believe you do not own the mineral rights or any other resource unless expressly mentioned in the deeds to the property. Quite what happens if you find something you do affects a structure under you I don't know, but I bet the lawyers would love it.

I can remember a person telling me that he had a bore hole for water on his land and although he could draw water from it there was some complex clause about over use in case it affected other holes used by the water utility nearby, also he had to test it every so often if he wanted to use it.

I remember asking him what would happen if he poured gallons of petrol down it. He did not know but he thought it would be bad!

Brian

[Tim Lamb]

In message , harryagain writes

Too late now, Harry.

Last October was the deadline.

Those under me are reserved by LaFarge-Tarmac anyway.

[Tim w]

That would be the obvious assumption, but the govt has stolen that from you and is selling the fracking rights.

Tim W

[Brian Gaff]

You also have the issue of what you are built on. Just down a couple of roads from here houses are built on an old clay quarry and flood plains. The landfill of the quarry is now sinking causing all sorts of issues for the houses built on a concrete raft under them in the 1960s. Of course the obvious answer is to get some money out of the people responsible for allowing building on this, but of course the local authority boundaries have changed and lots of changes to law and such have happened, with the result that they are basically stuffed. They have houses nobody wants to buy and they really do not know what the future hold and cannot get insurance for the building for anything resulting from the sinking ground.

Brian

[Nightjar]

Railways require an Act of Parliament and that Act includes the right to pass under or over the land on the route.

[The Todal]

A very good legal question, that. Mr Justice Tudor Evans has some useful things to say on that topic.

It is well established by ancient authority that the soil of the highway usque ad medium filum viae belongs to the owner of land adjoining the highway: see, for example, Goodtitle v Alker (1757) 97 Eng Rep 231, cited in Bridges v London Borough of Harrow (1981) 260 ESTATES GAZETTE

284, to which I have been referred. In Goodtitle v Alker, Lord Mansfield said at p 236:

? the King has nothing but the passage for himself and his people: but the freehold and all profits belong to the owner of the soil. So do all the trees upon it, and mines under it ?

Moreover, although an owner is not able to interfere with the use of the soil as a highway, there is long-established authority that his rights are preserved in other respects. His ownership of mines and minerals was expressly preserved by section 27 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 and his right in law to carry out activities in the subsoil is well recognised: see Halsbury's Laws of England, vol 21, para

101.

[Martin Brown]

There must be something wrong with the concrete rafts then. That method and timber frame is common in areas with coal mining and even more unpredictable ancient salt/brine extraction where subsidence is rife.

It should work provided that the house doesn't sink by too much and they remembered to provide jacking points to level the building periodically. A few old buildings in Cheshire salt belt now have doors in the first floor and a double basement. A load vanished in 1880's.

They don't learn. There is a new development near me where the land is known to flood regularly and in spring this year they had to stop work for a couple of months until the floods subsided. They will sell these brand new homes to unsuspecting suckers and hope that this winter is a bit drier. I really don't understand how they can get away with it.

[Flop]

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that the drawn water was the right/property of the water utility.

A company had its own borehole to obtain pure, untreated water for chemical products. I was told that they had to pay for the water.

[michael adams]

Indeed everyone's land goes down to an infinitely small point in the middle of the Earth. Where everyone's land meets up. Apparently its very hot down there and do would be a good place to burn all the garden rubbish.

Unless you live in a flat of course.

And by the same token you presumably must own all the space over your head as well. Which, miles out into space, must cover quite a large volume, scope for quite a large roof extension.

You should then presumably also be able to charge any aircraft or satellites which passed through your airspace.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Not really. There's big enough problems demarcating boundaries on the surface as it is, never mind 100 feet down or wherever.

Indeed. The "govt" of William the Conquerer in 1066.

Which otherwise presumably would need to be negotiated by private individuals.

You don't happen to be a lawyer by any chance do you ?

michael adams

...

[John]

"Martin Brown" wrote

Local authories have been trying to ban such developments for years, but often large commercial builders own the land, and government relaxation of planning laws make it easier to get planning permission.

Most local authorities are now reluction to deny permission because such a decision is always appealed, and the developers know the councils cannot afford large legal bills.

John.

[Tim Streater]

If true, unsurprising since the water utility has to take water from the water table. I suppose you could fence off the bit of water table under your land by digging a trench down a mile or two all around your boundary, and installing a vertical membrane.

[Tim Streater]

Further, AIUI, once the developer sells the house, their liabilities cease, even if built without planning.

[RobertL]

They didn't 'steal it' from you; you never bought it.

Robert

[Chris Hogg]

Quite. You never owned it; it always belonged to the government.

[Nightjar]

On 03/12/2014 09:24, Flop wrote: ...

You are usually free to take up to 20 cubic metres per day.

[Martin Brown]

It isn't just surface water table water there are the equivalent of deep underground rivers in certain locations with the right geology. Some major industrial complexes tap into them using deep boreholes.

I presume they have the appropriate licenses...

[John]

"Flop" wrote

Not so long ago on one of the TV property programs the owner of a (fairly modest) detached country property in Derbyshire found he had a spring on his land. After suitable tests which proved it was fit for human consumption, he was told he was free to bottle and sell the spring water and had free unlimited use of it.

Would that not be the same for bore holes?

John.