Local authority pipe on private land.

loremolis

Can anyone please point me to the relevant law or judgements regarding local authority service pipes crossing private land?

In particular, my query relates to whether a local authority pipe crossing through private land can gain any rights over the land by being there for a period of time. If so, what rights and after what period of time?

I'm not sure that 'squatters rights' is the correct term, but is there an equivalent of squatters rights for a service pipe?

Procrastastudy

Not entirely relevant but worth a read:

Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] UKHL 2

Basically if it's on your land and goes wrong; causing damage to anothers land, you could be found liable.

Milk & Honey

loremolis wrote: »

Can anyone please point me to the relevant law or judgements regarding local authority service pipes crossing private land?

In particular, my query relates to whether a local authority pipe crossing through private land can gain any rights over the land by being there for a period of time. If so, what rights and after what period of time?

I'm not sure that 'squatters rights' is the correct term, but is there an equivalent of squatters rights for a service pipe?

A pipe cannot acquire rights.

Predalien

The local authority should have a wayleave for a pipe crossing private land, if they don't, it's possible they could acquire such a wayleave by prescription after 12 years. This can occur in a manner similar to adverse possession but will not result in a change in title, merely the acquisition of a right.

johnfás

Local authorities also have statutory rights to lay and maintain pipes under private land under the Water Services Act.

chops018

Sounds like an easement to me.

loremolis

Maybe this is a question more suited to the construction and planning forum.

Is it possible to have it moved?

FridayBravo

Predalien wrote: »

The local authority should have a wayleave for a pipe crossing private land, if they don't, it's possible they could acquire such a wayleave by prescription after 12 years. This can occur in a manner similar to adverse possession but will not result in a change in title, merely the acquisition of a right.

Local Authorities almost never have wayleaves on sewers or watermains on private lands. The only times I've seen a wayleave is if a diversion is carried out. LA's basically act as if there was a wayleave. There are a number of powers in the Water Services Act which prohibit interference with a watermain or sewer. I have seen developers been put to great expense to comply, so I am assuming thes have been tested in court.

loremolis

FridayBravo wrote: »

Local Authorities almost never have wayleaves on sewers or watermains on private lands. The only times I've seen a wayleave is if a diversion is carried out. LA's basically act as if there was a wayleave. There are a number of powers in the Water Services Act which prohibit interference with a watermain or sewer. I have seen developers been put to great expense to comply, so I am assuming thes have been tested in court.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.

How can a Local Authority/Sanitary Authority require a landowner to alter a pipe when they (LA) don't hold a wayleave or easement that gives them any defined rights to retain the pipe in the first place?

If the LA/SA have powers of compulsory powers to acquire a wayleave or easement and chose not to use them, then what rights do they have if a pipe is passing through private land and the landowner objects.

This is the most relevant thing I could find on the subject, but what I'm really looking for are any court cases that considered the matter.

http://water.lasntg.ie/circulars/2003%20L15%20(WSP)%20-%20Consent%20to%20Run%20Pipes%20Through%20Private%20LAnd.doc

loremolis

Predalien wrote: »

The local authority should have a wayleave for a pipe crossing private land, if they don't, it's possible they could acquire such a wayleave by prescription after 12 years. This can occur in a manner similar to adverse possession but will not result in a change in title, merely the acquisition of a right.

Does a statutory body with powers of compulsory acquisition acquire rights by prescription?

If they calim that they do, wouldn't they have to go to court to have those rights confirmed/approved?