planning application boundary to centre of road

bemak

Can the site boundary of a planning application extend to the centre of the adjacent public road? The land registry map includes half the road as part of the folio so I would just be replicating this boundary in the planning application. I just haven't really seen this done before so just wanted to double check.

sydthebeat

Generally not, especially if your trying to include that land to make up a minimum site area.

I've seen it shown like that, but it's not a proper representation of the site.

Gumbo

bemak wrote: »

Can the site boundary of a planning application extend to the centre of the adjacent public road? The land registry map includes half the road as part of the folio so I would just be replicating this boundary in the planning application. I just haven't really seen this done before so just wanted to double check.

No. Red line around what you own.

bemak

kceire wrote:

No. Red line around what you own.

Do you not technically own half the road along your frontage all be it that it's under the council control? Or else is the land registry map incorrect to show it as part of the folio?

Metric Tensor

I have seen it marked both ways for planning. Regardless of what the land registry map shows you don't own half the road.

Like syd says I don't think you'll get away with using half the road to make up the area of a site if you're stuck.

bemak

Not stuck for area. Far from it actually. Was just wondering as a technicality. Thanks all

Gumbo

bemak wrote: »

Do you not technically own half the road along your frontage all be it that it's under the council control? Or else is the land registry map incorrect to show it as part of the folio?

I’ve never heard it to be honest. I’ve never made or validated a planning app that shows the boundary to the road centre line.

I’m city based so my experience is that.

kieran.

In rural areas you can own to the middle of the road if its shown that way on your folio. The Council only have a legal interest/licence over the metal of the road AFAIK.

bemak

Spoke to the council this morning and they confirmed that the site boundary should reflect that of the land registry map. So include half the road in this instance. Just putting it up there to close out the thread for anyone searching after

Peregrinus

kieran. wrote: »

In rural areas you can own to the middle of the road if its shown that way on your folio. The Council only have a legal interest/licence over the metal of the road AFAIK.

The public have rights over the roadway bit, and (assuming they have taken it in charge) the Council have responsiblities for maintenance, etc.

This isn't confined to the metalled bit. Everything beyond your boundary market (hedge, ditch, fence, whatever) is assumed to be included in the area dedicated as a public highway. So not just the metalled bit, but also footpaths, grass verges, etc, etc. You still own it, but your ownership is subject to the public right of way over it.

Metric Tensor

I have found that when carrying out new land registry mapping even if I submit a map showing the registered boundary at the centre of the road the land registry will automatically clip it to the wall/hedge line at the edge of the road.

garbo speaks

kceire wrote: »

I’ve never heard it to be honest. I’ve never made or validated a planning app that shows the boundary to the road centre line.

I’m city based so my experience is that.

It's the same everywhere, the red line boundary does NOT extend to the centre of any public road adjoining a proposed site.

bemak

garbo speaks wrote: »

kceire wrote: »

I’ve never heard it to be honest. I’ve never made or validated a planning app that shows the boundary to the road centre line.

I’m city based so my experience is that.

It's the same everywhere, the red line boundary does NOT extend to the centre of any public road adjoining a proposed site.

Well I have it from the horses mouth that I the boundary submitted can match that of the Land Registry map which indicates a boundary that runs down the centre of the road.

garbo speaks

bemak wrote: »

Well I have it from the horses mouth that I the boundary submitted can match that of the Land Registry map which indicates a boundary that runs down the centre of the road.

This is completely incorrect, but it's your planning application. Attempting to show part of an adjoining public road as a literal part of a proposed site will not be accepted by any planning department in validation.

Metric Tensor

garbo speaks wrote: »

This is completely incorrect, but it's your planning application. Attempting to show part of an adjoining public road as a literal part of a proposed site will not be accepted by any planning department in validation.

Have you tried with all 31 local authorities? Because that's the only way you'll know. Validation is quite subjective. I've found that something that is fine with one authority won't fly with another. In fact it even varies within local authorities depending on who is validating that day!

It shouldn't vary, but it does.

kieran.

garbo speaks wrote: »

This is completely incorrect, but it's your planning application. Attempting to show part of an adjoining public road as a literal part of a proposed site will not be accepted by any planning department in validation.

Its the accepted norm in Monaghan, Cavan, Louth ? for the 15 odd years I have been submitting applications !

bemak

I'm going to submit the application with the boundary as per the land registry map - i.e. including half of the road. I will submit a copy of the LRM which shows same for information. 
I will let you know how it was received.

mickdw

I always submit planning for rural sites with road boundary matching folio - running to road centre.
I find it avoids issues down the line where for example if I show a 100m Deep site from road edge, someone else may complete a transfer map for the property and mark the site as 100 from centre line. Result then is missing land at rear of site.
Whether the portion of land running over roadway should count for site area is another issue however it is not queried in mayo anyway.

Gumbo

Well, just to conflict the norm.
From talking to the Senior Technician that validates in a large City Council, he mentioned that it used to be the middle of the public road when he first started (40 years ago) but now its to the site boundary.

If an App is lodged with the red line to the middle of the public road, the applicant will be asked to change it to the site boundary / extent of legal ownership.

bemak

And where would you find the extent of the legal ownership - on the land registry map which shows it extending to the road centreline.


I think it all depends really on where the site is. If it's in an urban context then you definitely shouldn't be extending to the road centerline. It's unlikely that the folio would reflect same in any case. However, if you're dealing with a rural site, I think it's more likely that the folio extends to the road centreline. From what other people have said, it doesn't seem to be uncommon for the site boundary to extend to the road centreline in the latter scenario as the issue of making up the site area tends not to be a problem.

woody1

been doing them to road centre ( or whatever matches registry ) for the guts of 20 years, never had an issue,

sydthebeat

so in the heel of the hunt, both ways are acceptable, in different local authorities, and most people have their own way of doing it

tabby aspreme

There is a 1 acre site with a house ruin next door to me which my sister sold. When her engineer marked it for land registry he did not include half the road width on the map, and it was left on my folio. Which resulted in me having a visit from a very panicked new neighbour who thought they bought a landlocked site .

longgonesilver

Something similar near here,site was extracted from the field leaving a strip 1-2M wide that originally would have been the ditch left on the farmers map. On indirect it looks like he sold the site but held into the road frontage.

Metric Tensor

Both of the above items might not have been on purpose - the land registry have a habit of clipping the boundary to the wall even if the engineer shows it to the road centre.

This can leave some "interesting" bits and pieces left over around the place.

mickdw

I've only seen clipping by land registry where there was a reason that the registration couldn't go to centre of road.
From what I have learned over the years,
land registry will kick back mapping over tiny discrepancies however when it comes to discrepancies out on the road, they don't seem at all concerned.

Metric Tensor

They clipped a few on me back in the earlier days of digital! Maybe it has changed since.

I can't recall the most recent one I did and what happened. I must check.

shane6977

The red line on your planning site map shows the area of the site which is to be developed as part of the application. You show a blue boundary to indicate the extent of lands in your ownership but not part of the planning application.

If your folio map shows your ownership extends to the centre of the road you show a blue line boundary from the centre of road to your development (red) boundary be that a hedgerow / wall / fence etc.

Penn

The way I've always proceeded is that the boundary for Land Registry maps go to the centre of the road, unless in a housing estate in which case they go to the edge of the footpath (as the footpath & common areas fall under the management committee or taken in charge).

For planning, either way is generally fine, however it's usually best to show the red line boundary to the hedge/fence/inner side of road verge in order to delineate the area of the proposed development, as the red line for planning permission is to show the site boundary for the proposed works rather than legal ownership. An outer blue boundary to show ownership to the centre of the road is generally not warranted unless the blue boundary is going to show other areas also under the ownership of the applicant.

Have never had an issue with doing it this way, either with Local Authorities or Land Registry.

garbo speaks

Penn wrote: »

the red line for planning permission is to show the site boundary for the proposed works rather than legal ownership.

That's the way to do it. I think people who show the road as part of the site are really clutching at straws in an attempt to show the site area bigger than it is.