Extending garden to include what’s on the deeds

[booboo731]

Hey guys,

 

Just buying a house for my mum, and I’m wondering if someone has come across the same issue before.

 

The garden at the moment is L shaped, and not taking up the whole land indicated on the plot. In fact, it more seems that the neighbours parking space is taking up more than what it should on our land. I asked the neighbour and he said he doesn’t know why and that it’s always been like that. It’s in a little culdesac and the parking space is just one in a dead end surrounded by a couple of garages, one of which we would own and is included in the deeds.

 

question is, would we need planning permission to extend? Here is a picture of the land from land registry for mine and his land, and a Google earth view of how it is.

[Dave Jones]

ask the solicitor to see what the deeds say, unlikely you would own part of the car park i would have thought ?

[booboo731]

Thing is it’s only a parking spot for the neighbours car, no other part of the car park. So I can’t see why I can’t make the parking space for him narrower for me to get more garden space.

[Ferdinand]

Take careful advice before doing this. It is this sort of thing that can blow up a relationship.

What rights does the neighbour have?

 

F

[Dave Jones]

you need proof the neighbour is parking on your land. 

 

Personally i would get an indemnity policy from the seller that you can claim against come the day you move the fence onto the neighbours space and it kicks off.

[IanR]

Are there parking bays marked out by the Council? or are they informal?

On both deeds there is a different type of boundary shown by a solid line and a dotted line. Is it possible that while you own the area shown by the dotted line on your deeds, others have access over it. This would be included in the text within your Deeds/Title document.

 

If so then you wouldn't be able to enclose within your garden.

It looks clear you own it, but others may have rights over it.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by IanR

[Dave Jones]

they may still have access rights over it even if its not stated on the deeds if its been used over an extended period.

[AliG]

If I look at the first two plans it looks like your mum has two spaces and the neighbour has one.

 

But looking at the Google Maps picture it doesn't look wide enough to park three cars, although has he got some bins at one side there and is then stealing some of your mum's space to still have a parking space? It does look pretty clear that the boundary between the spaces is in line with the boundary between the houses. Maybe the previous owners just didn't;t mind him being over the boundary as they didn't need the space.

 

If it isn't wide enough for three cars and there is basically a space for one car each why would you want to make life awkward for someone for the sake of a tiny bit of extra garden. On the other hand is the neighbour being cheeky and using one and a half spaces by using it for storage as well? Also whose car is that parked in front of the garage. If you made the neighbour move over, then they couldn't park there either. Does your mum need this kind of hassle with neighbours?

 

Ignoring my personal opinion, I agree with other people, it is highly unlikely that you own what is basically the road and can enclose it. The deeds appear to show the neighbour owning the spot in front of their garage, if they actually parked there, you wouldn't be able to get to your garage.

 

If you do own it, you would likely need planning permission to enclose it and it would likely be refused. I see a lot of people locally in modern estates trying to do this, where they try to enclose amenity ground around their house which is on their deeds. It often gets knocked back.

[booboo731]

Thanks for the advice guys, my mum isn’t happy about the garden being so small so have to cancel the sale.

 

for completion, the neighbour has that parking space and ours would have been at the front of the house  really appreciate the advice though and thank you  

[booboo731]

Hey guys,

 

ignore my previous post. My mum has calmed down (she gets anxiety attacks) and she’s still wanting the place! What a palava!

 

anyway, of course I don’t want to cause the neighbour any stress.

 

the council has confirmed nothing is marked out on their side. The parking space that the neighbour uses which is in his land is taking up space into my land (as you can see from the screenshots). If I made my fence around my land, there is still enough space for one car and for him to get out comfortably.

 

I think the issue is the pavement itself that is on our land.

 

[booboo731]

20 hours ago, IanR said:

Are there parking bays marked out by the Council? or are they informal?

On both deeds there is a different type of boundary shown by a solid line and a dotted line. Is it possible that while you own the area shown by the dotted line on your deeds, others have access over it. This would be included in the text within your Deeds/Title document.

 

If so then you wouldn't be able to enclose within your garden.

It looks clear you own it, but others may have rights over it.

 

 

I suppose it depends how much from the dotted line I can then fence. You can see that even if I fenced a foot from the dotted line, there would still be more garden space to claim.

[IanR]

1 minute ago, booboo731 said:

I suppose it depends how much from the dotted line I can then fence. You can see that even if I fenced a foot from the dotted line, there would still be more garden space to claim.

It does depend on what is stated in the Title document regarding these areas bounded by the dotted line.

More likely is that you can fence what is within the solid line (which is where the fence line currently is) but the area bounded by the dotted line may have to be left open to allow others access over it.

[booboo731]

18 hours ago, AliG said:

If I look at the first two plans it looks like your mum has two spaces and the neighbour has one.

 

But looking at the Google Maps picture it doesn't look wide enough to park three cars, although has he got some bins at one side there and is then stealing some of your mum's space to still have a parking space? It does look pretty clear that the boundary between the spaces is in line with the boundary between the houses. Maybe the previous owners just didn't;t mind him being over the boundary as they didn't need the space.

 

If it isn't wide enough for three cars and there is basically a space for one car each why would you want to make life awkward for someone for the sake of a tiny bit of extra garden. On the other hand is the neighbour being cheeky and using one and a half spaces by using it for storage as well? Also whose car is that parked in front of the garage. If you made the neighbour move over, then they couldn't park there either. Does your mum need this kind of hassle with neighbours?

 

Ignoring my personal opinion, I agree with other people, it is highly unlikely that you own what is basically the road and can enclose it. The deeds appear to show the neighbour owning the spot in front of their garage, if they actually parked there, you wouldn't be able to get to your garage.

 

If you do own it, you would likely need planning permission to enclose it and it would likely be refused. I see a lot of people locally in modern estates trying to do this, where they try to enclose amenity ground around their house which is on their deeds. It often gets knocked back.

Hey, so it wouldn’t be awkward as that space is his by land. We have a space at the front we can park in but also the garage as well.

 

that parking space is clearly his on paper, it’s just the space is spilling onto our land by about a metre and a half. The bins of the neighbour are on the other side of that parking space. Our bins, and number 51 (the side next to us) who was a bit cheeky to put them on our side has put them there. I noticed on Google maps 51 put the bins at the front of their house not the back so can’t see moving them being a problem either. 
 

Again, they own the space in front of their garage and I own the space in front of mine (to the left of his) so that’s not an issue either as the space in question only has enough space for 1 and a half cars anyway.

 

what would be the reason planning permission would be refused on claiming 1 and a half metres of land in a dead end back road? ?

 

 

[booboo731]

3 minutes ago, IanR said:

It does depend on what is stated in the Title document regarding these areas bounded by the dotted line.

More likely is that you can fence what is within the solid line (which is where the fence line currently is) but the area bounded by the dotted line may have to be left open to allow others access over it.

I appreciate that. Even still if we go by the red line where the dotted line is, there’s still space to extend to it ? I know not a lot but…

[AliG]

4 minutes ago, booboo731 said:

what would be the reason planning permission would be refused on claiming 1 and a half metres of land in a dead end back road? ?

It’s a change of use from parking/road to garden ground.

 

As other people have mentioned it is likely that within the deeds other people may have access rights over the areas bound by the dotted lines.

 

Even if they don’t the council might not want to reduce available parking and manoeuvring space so that you can have a larger fenced in garden. They have to consider the impact on everyone.

[booboo731]

1 minute ago, AliG said:

It’s a change of use from parking/road to garden ground.

 

As other people have mentioned it is likely that within the deeds other people may have access rights over the areas bound by the dotted lines.

 

Even if they don’t the council might not want to reduce available parking and manoeuvring space so that you can have a larger fenced in garden. They have to consider the impact on everyone.

True.

 

Perhaps it can be extended to where the bins are themselves though, since they would be able to sit along my adjacent fence (or front of house where most are). I can’t see why that would be refused as the parking and manoeuvring space becomes unaffected.

 

it’s true that once the solicitors get the deeds, we can see if there is any info. If there is not then I don’t see why the above would be a problem.

[IanR]

21 minutes ago, booboo731 said:

I appreciate that. Even still if we go by the red line where the dotted line is, there’s still space to extend to it ? I know not a lot but…

 

The red lines define the areas included on the Title document, and therefore what would be "Owned" by your mother if she went forward with the purchase. The red line is correctly drawn in that the outside edge of its thickness aligns to the boundary line. In the area in question the boundary line is shown dotted.

It looks to me that the fence is on the solid line marked by the blue arrow:

 

 

The fence shouldn't cross the solid boundary line, so the outer face needs to sit on, or just in side this boundary.

 

The green hatched area, bounded by the dotted line, while it would be owned by your mother, would need to be kept clear, assuming the dotted line denotes others having access rights over it.

Edited August 9, 2021 by IanR

[booboo731]

30 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

The red lines define the areas included on the Title document, and therefore what would be "Owned" by your mother if she went forward with the purchase. The red line is correctly drawn in that the outside edge of its thickness aligns to the boundary line. In the area in question the boundary line is shown dotted.

It looks to me that the fence is on the solid line marked by the blue arrow:

 

 

The fence shouldn't cross the solid boundary line, so the outer face needs to sit on, or just in side this boundary.

 

The green hatched area, bounded by the dotted line, while it would be owned by your mother, would need to be kept clear, assuming the dotted line denotes others having access rights over it.

I see, so the part between the solid line and dotted line is obligatory to keep clear? Is there anywhere on land registry where it explains this should always be the case? The solid black line just shows a physical boundary that was erected I.e the fence. By law, is it not possible to shift the fence (black solid line) as close to the dotted line as possible but within the red solid line ownership?

[IanR]

21 minutes ago, booboo731 said:

I see, so the part between the solid line and dotted line is obligatory to keep clear? Is there anywhere on land registry where it explains this should always be the case? The solid black line just shows a physical boundary that was erected I.e the fence. By law, is it not possible to shift the fence (black solid line) as close to the dotted line as possible but within the red solid line ownership?

 

As per the caveats I've included on each of my comments, I'm assuming that the Title Deed refers to (and explains) these different boundary types. And, I'm assuming that the dotted line denotes something different to the solid line.

For Instance, a dotted boundary line is used in the space in front of the garage. I would assume that is so the owner has the area protected from anyone else parking there, so that they have access to the garage, but others have a right of access over that area in order to access their own garages and turn their vehicles around. ie. the owner would not be permitted to enclose that area and deny others their right of access over it.

There isn't a standard for what these different line formats mean across all Titles held at the Land Registry, but it is quite normal that they are used on a Title Plan and then referred to by the Title to describe what they infer in each case.

Edited August 9, 2021 by IanR

[booboo731]

44 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

As per the caveats I've included on each of my comments, I'm assuming that the Title Deed refers to (and explains) these different boundary types. And, I'm assuming that the dotted line denotes something different to the solid line.

For Instance, a dotted boundary line is used in the space in front of the garage. I would assume that is so the owner has the area protected from anyone else parking there, so that they have access to the garage, but others have a right of access over that area in order to access their own garages and turn their vehicles around. ie. the owner would not be permitted to enclose that area and deny others their right of access over it.

There isn't a standard for what these different line formats mean across all Titles held at the Land Registry, but it is quite normal that they are used on a Title Plan and then referred to by the Title to describe what they infer in each case.

Thanks Ian.

 

I guess just to be technical about it (and I’m not saying this is logical to do for an extra bit of garden), that with all those assumptions turning out to be true, technically (technically in quotes), you could build a fence around where the dotted line is, with a door for rights of access, and leave the current configuration of the garden as is. I.e fence around where the dotted line is with a door for access, and leave the garden as is.

 

Sounds silly and I probably would not bother doing that as not sure it would be a massive benefit, but I guess that would be feasible if someone really wanted to do that…

[IanR]

3 minutes ago, booboo731 said:

technically (technically in quotes), you could build a fence around where the dotted line is, with a door for rights of access, and leave the current configuration of the garden as is. I.e fence around where the dotted line is with a door for access, and leave the garden as is.

 

I'd check the wording on the Title. Downloadable from Land Registry for £3, or £6 with the Title Plan included. I expect the wording will be pretty tight if the intention is to leave those areas, bounded by a dotted line, to be open for others to have access over it.

[booboo731]

13 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

I'd check the wording on the Title. Downloadable from Land Registry for £3, or £6 with the Title Plan included. I expect the wording will be pretty tight if the intention is to leave those areas, bounded by a dotted line, to be open for others to have access over it.

Tbh that’s why we are seeking the solicitors because the title plan says nothing about this.

 

It just says:

 

A: Property Register
This register describes the land and estate comprised in
the title.
 SURREY : XXX
 1      The Freehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the above Title
        filed at the Registry and being 52 XXXX XXX, XXXXX and
        Garage (XXXX XXX).
 2      The land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is subject to the
        rights reserved by the Transfer dated 19 May 1989 referred to in the
        Charges Register.
B: Proprietorship Register
This register specifies the class of title and
identifies the owner. It contains any entries that
affect the right of disposal.
Title absolute
 1      (27.02.2001) PROPRIETOR: XXXXX
        of 52 XXXXXX.
 2      (27.02.2001) The price stated to have been paid on 19 January 2001 was
        XXXXX.
 3      (27.02.2001) The Transfer to the proprietor contains a covenant to
        observe and perform the covenants referred to in the Charges Register
        and of indemnity in respect thereof.
   Charges Register
This register contains any charges and other matters
that affect the land.
 1      A Transfer of the land in this title dated 19 May 1989 made between (1)
        Thames Water Authority (2) Wimpey Homes Holdings Limited and (3) XXX Hardy and XXX Hardy contains restrictive covenants.
        NOTE: Copy filed.
 2      (02.02.2006) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 31 January 2006.
 3      (02.02.2006) Proprietor: XXX BUILDING SOCIETY
End of register

 

I’ve omitted some personal details with Xs, but that is all it says in the title plan and register…

[booboo731]

I’ve also contacted highway, as the original deeds (I have them now) do not specify any restrictions on what can be done with P31.