Hypothetical question about road frontage

Donald Trump

Was having a hypothetical discussion in the context of the perennial Irish obsession with road frontage.



Hypothetical scenario: Old winding road. Owner A has property along the road. Owns out to near edge of road. Neighbour B opposite owns across under road. Council decide to fix and straighten the road, but in doing so shift it beyond the owner A's legal boundary. So now, B owns a thin strip of land between A's property and the new road


What happens? What if there was no entrance along that stretch (but obviously any future attempt to make an access point would be impossible)


Does the owner of the land which is used for the new stretch of road receive compensation? What about the one who has his "road frontage" taken away. Would he have any right to have the council buy the land between his existing land and the new edge of the road in order to have that road frontage back.

4ensic15

Donald Trump wrote: »

Council decide to fix and straighten the road, but in doing so shift it beyond the owners legal boundary.

The Council doesn't shift a road into someone's land at the drop of a hat. If the Council propose a road re-alignment they publish a draft plan and seek the views of all potentially affected landowners. Each owner can then make submissions on how they are affected by the proposals. The Council will negotiate with the owners regarding compensation and if agreement cannot be reached there will be an arbitration.
Anybody whose land is taken away is entitled to be compensated, nobody has a right to be given land.

Donald Trump

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Council doesn't shift a road into someone's land at the drop of a hat. If the Council propose a road re-alignment they publish a draft plan and seek the views of all potentially affected landowners. Each owner can then make submissions on how they are affected by the proposals. The Council will negotiate with the owners regarding compensation and if agreement cannot be reached there will be an arbitration.
Anybody whose land is taken away is entitled to be compensated, nobody has a right to be given land.

Ah ok. That makes sense. Didn't think of that. I wasn't thinking along the lines of a 10 mile re-alignment, more like widening and cutting across to get rid of a dangerous corner or blackspot or something like that



Under my scenario, does Owner A even have any right to be "affected". He is not losing any of his land. But it still might devalue his property I guess.

4ensic15

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah ok. That makes sense. Didn't think of that. I wasn't thinking along the lines of a 10 mile re-alignment, more like widening and cutting across to get rid of a dangerous corner or blackspot or something like that



Under my scenario, does Owner A even have any right to be "affected". He is not losing any of his land. But it still might devalue his property I guess.

It is a major realignment if they are putting an entirely new section of road through someone's land. Mostly they just widen the road top eliminate bends.
If an entirely new section goes in A would have the old road coming into his land as a private avenue, which would enhance the value of his land.

ganmo

This is what CPO’s are for

fepper

Donald Trump wrote: »

Was having a hypothetical discussion in the context of the perennial Irish obsession with road frontage.



Hypothetical scenario: Old winding road. Owner A has property along the road. Owns out to near edge of road. Neighbour B opposite owns across under road. Council decide to fix and straighten the road, but in doing so shift it beyond the owner A's legal boundary. So now, B owns a thin strip of land between A's property and the new road


What happens? What if there was no entrance along that stretch (but obviously any future attempt to make an access point would be impossible)


Does the owner of the land which is used for the new stretch of road receive compensation? What about the one who has his "road frontage" taken away. Would he have any right to have the council buy the land between his existing land and the new edge of the road in order to have that road frontage back.

I've seen country roads made wider by taking the grass margin right up to to butt of existing ditches/hedge on both sides of the road,fill with stones and tar over,so I would presume in your hypothetical situation,both A and B would each have a ditch/hedge boundary with the road and the grass margin seems to be no man land

Donald Trump

fepper wrote: »

I've seen country roads made wider by taking the grass margin right up to to butt of existing ditches/hedge on both sides of the road,fill with stones and tar over,so I would presume in your hypothetical situation,both A and B would each have a ditch/hedge boundary with the road and the grass margin seems to be no man land

As far as I understand it there is no "no mans land". Someone legally owns the land under the road.



Imagine an exaggerated bend in the road, like a "C". Owner A owns around the outside of the curve of the "C", but doesn't have access points along that stretch. His property runs to edge of the existing road. B's property comes across the road to the edge of his.



Council decides to straighten road. B is happy to allow them to do it. He owns the land under the curved part of the road so it's a straight swap for him. He's actually happy that the road is now straightened as it removes a dangerous bend. Maybe he is also happy that with a better and more straight road, he might be able to get planning permission for a house where previously it was ruled out for being too close to a bend.


A still has the old road to the edge of his field, but no entrances etc. He used to get to that land from across other land. He cannot establish a right of way. He just no longer has that road frontage

Donald Trump

ganmo wrote: »

This is what CPO’s are for

I'm not talking about the person "losing" the land. That's is person B. I'm talking about the person who has "road frontage" which will be taken away. But there will be no direct change to their property.

fepper

Surely if the council wanted to straighten that bend and both landowners co-operated with the council,it could be designed to accommodate both landowners needs

Donald Trump

fepper wrote: »

Surely if the council wanted to straighten that bend and both landowners co-operated with the council,it could be designed to accommodate both landowners needs

This is a hypothetical scenario.


My interpretation is that person "A" has no rights different to anyone else whose land does not border the road.


None of their land is being affected. They are not losing any access or rights of way.



They will just have less road frontage.


Suppose person A does not want the change. But person B and the council and everyone else are for it. Does person A have any rights beyond what the arbitrary citizen has? I mean as in rights to prevent it etc

Victor

While there is a limited right to access, I can't see a right to frontage, certainly not on someone else's land.

If this is a real concern, owner A should make a submission to the council at an early stage, when the road is being designed.

EDIT: Closure of a public right of way normally requires a substantial process.

fepper

Donald Trump wrote: »

Does the owner of the land which is used for the new stretch of road receive compensation? What about the one who has his "road frontage" taken away. Would he have any right to have the council buy the land between his existing land and the new edge of the road in order to have that road frontage back.

If that section of road was straightened,I'm sure existing old road section would be incorporated into it with the same road frontage for farmer A,so on that particular section of road it would be wider only at that point with the rest of the road at normal width, I had always assumed if different landowners at both sides of a country road that each owned the land underneath,half the land underneath the road each

Donald Trump

fepper wrote: »

If that section of road was straightened,I'm sure existing old road section would be incorporated into it with the same road frontage for farmer A,so on that particular section of road it would be wider only at that point with the rest of the road at normal width

It's a hypothetical scenario.



So in my hypothetical scenario, that does not happen. I am allowed to do that under my scenario .The hypothetical scenario is this:
1) Landowner had land along road.
2) There is no entrance/access along that specific portion of road
3) Road shifts so that there is now a sliver of land between A's land and the road

4) Result - loss of road frontage



In order to think of an "extreme" example, I said to think about a "C" shaped curve. You know how you learn how an oxbow lake is formed? Think of that but with a road and not a river




No I will modify my scenario. Suppose it is a longer stretch and there is a gate/right of way. The owner is given access/right of way to the gate. But the road frontage is still gone. He now has to go down a very short lane to enter his property

fepper

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's a hypothetical scenario.



So in my hypothetical scenario, that does not happen. I am allowed to do that under my scenario .The hypothetical scenario is this:
1) Landowner had land along road.
2) There is no entrance/access along that specific portion of road
3) Road shifts so that there is now a sliver of land between A's land and the road

4) Result - loss of road frontage



In order to think of an "extreme" example, I said to think about a "C" shaped curve. You know how you learn how an oxbow lake is formed? Think of that but with a road and not a river




No I will modify my scenario. Suppose it is a longer stretch and there is a gate/right of way. The owner is given access/right of way to the gate. But the road frontage is still gone. He now has to go down a very short lane to enter his property

As its stands hypothetically speaking A has a road whether public or private in front of that section of land today, unless someone digs out the road,I cant see him losing a existing road fronting his land

4ensic15

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's a hypothetical scenario.







No I will modify my scenario. Suppose it is a longer stretch and there is a gate/right of way. The owner is given access/right of way to the gate. But the road frontage is still gone. He now has to go down a very short lane to enter his property

That would enhance the value of his property. A house could be built or two could be built on his land which don't open directly on to the main road but have easy access to it.

Donald Trump

fepper wrote: »

As its stands hypothetically speaking A has a road whether public or private in front of that section of land today, unless someone digs out the road,I cant see him losing a existing road fronting his land

It's not his to lose.


If you mean will the physical tar/stone/concrete still be there? Ok hypothetically we will say that owner B, who "owns" the road, or at least his legal title extends under the road, leaves it there.

It is now just a block of tar in B's field. A private lane to nowhere. A's property now borders a private lane whereas previously it bordered a public road.
A has no entrances or ways to establish a right of way along that road to his property. Or could he still claim that he needed that right of way as he used to walk the road to go other places? Either way, I don't think he could break a gap onto B's property

Donald Trump

4ensic15 wrote: »

That would enhance the value of his property. A house could be built or two could be built on his land which don't open directly on to the main road but have easy access to it.

Ok, but to prevent digressing, I had mentioned a very short lane. As in 5 feet of a lane. Or 10 feet. Whatever is the shortest to be plausible but long enough to move the road away from his property




It is true that he might get permission now in that location given that (under my "C" shape example) there is not a dangerous bend in the road anymore. But then again, he has no road frontage there anymore. Only a right of way into a field.

Donald Trump

Does this make my scenario clearer?

Suppose the dimensions are large enough that there won't just be a road widening to get rid of the bend, but that B will want to fence in the old bit of road

To repeat, B's legal property includes the entire existing (vertical) road

_______________________________________



____ \_________________ \__          __________ \______
                |         |         |
                |     B   |         |
      A         |         |         |
                |_________|         |
                |                   |
                |                   |
                |            ______ |
                |           |
                |           |
                |           |
                |           |                    B
                |           |
                |           |
 ______________ |           |________
                |                     |
                |                     |
                |                     |
                |___________          |
                           |          |
                           |          |
           B               |          |

Peregrinus

It would be very, very unusual for a road between the properties owned by A and B to run entirely on B's property. The almost invariable situation is that the boundary between A's property and B's property runs along the centre line of the road.

If the road is to be realigned the highway authority will consult all the affected landowners, as already pointed out. If the road is to be realigned so radically that it no longer touches A's property, and A loses potential access at that point, if this adversely affects the value of his property he can seek compensation, either the reduction in the value of his land, or the cost of acquiring a right of way to provide access via the new road.

Of course, if the reason A doesn't already have access is because planning or engineering considerations mean that access to the road at this point would not be permitted, the reduction in the value of A's land resulting from realignment of the road may be negligible.

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would be very, very unusual for a road between the properties owned by A and B to run entirely on B's property. The almost invariable situation is that the boundary between A's property and B's property runs along the centre line of the road.

If the road is to be realigned the highway authority will consult all the affected landowners, as already pointed out. If the road is to be realigned so radically that it no longer touches A's property, and A loses potential access at that point, if this adversely affects the value of his property he can seek compensation, either the reduction in the value of his land, or the cost of acquiring a right of way to provide access via the new road.

Of course, if the reason A doesn't already have access is because planning or engineering considerations mean that access to the road at this point would not be permitted, the reduction in the value of A's land resulting from realignment of the road may be negligible.

I always assumed that for neighbouring property, usually you owned half the road. However I was looking at the online land registry and this does not seem to be the case. There seem to be plenty of legal boundaries which take in the entire road


I just randomly clicked on the map at https://www.landdirect.ie/pramap/ and kept zooming in and I landed on a plot here. You can find it as folio MH62196F It does not seem uncommon. Here is another one randomly zoomed into in a completely different part of the country - WX15628F .Of course, they are only legal definitions of plots of land - the same individual may own the ones spanning the road but there is no reason why they would need to




My original post was a hypothetical question. So all the *usual* things don't need to apply unless they *must* apply by definition. That is why it is was an interesting question to me from a legal point of view. If I asked "what happens if I am in an airplane at 10,000ft and a window blows out" - well an answer would not be "that doesn't usually happen"

So if someone is wondering reasons why "A" doesn't have access there right now, you can think of any plausible reason why he might not. You might think that maybe that's because the geography didn't allow it or maybe there was never a need to have a gate there. It's hypothetical so come up with a plausible reason that still allows my question to stand

:-)

4ensic15

There are many errors in the land registery maps. They are not guaranteed to be reliable and in fact, a warning is given they are not to be relied on. What happens if a window blows out of an aircraft at 10,000 feet is that you won't be worrying about curvy roads.

Donald Trump

4ensic15 wrote: »

There are many errors in the land registery maps. They are not guaranteed to be reliable and in fact, a warning is given they are not to be relied on. What happens if a window blows out of an aircraft at 10,000 feet is that you won't be worrying about curvy roads.

Well do you think it is impossible that my scenario could occur?


If it is impossible, then we'll forget about it


If it is possible, even with a 0.00001% probability then assume one possible such scenario exists. And assuming it exists, assume it exists in the scenario I described. And given that, what is the legal issues and rights, if any?




As an aside, I'm a little disappointed with the responses on here to be honest. I was expecting an interesting discussion. I'm getting irrelevant replies like talking about CPOs. If there is not an answer, or if people don't know - then that's fine. I don't know myself :-)

4ensic15

I don't know what your scenario is. You are as clear as mud. You keep changing your hypothetical scenario with each post. Roads have been widened and straightened since the foundation of the state. All land ownership issues have been solved to date.

Donald Trump

4ensic15 wrote: »

I don't know what your scenario is. You are as clear as mud. You keep changing your hypothetical scenario with each post. Roads have been widened and straightened since the foundation of the state. All land ownership issues have been solved to date.

Look at post #18 . I can't make it any clearer than that



I have to keep modifying by adding details to explain to people who keep putting irrelevant counterpoints to my question.


It has nothing got to do with land ownership.


No land from owner A is being taken or removed.


Land from owner B is being affected but he is happy and has agreed. If you want to know the reasons why he agreed, or think that he wouldn't agree - well he is a hypothetical person and we can assume he has agreed.



When the road changes, it will no longer border A's land. But A had no rights of way onto their land from the road anyway. But the point is that they could have potentially obtained that in the future.

Peregrinus

Donald Trump wrote: »

Look at post #18 . I can't make it any clearer than that



I have to keep modifying by adding details to explain to people who keep putting irrelevant counterpoints to my question.


It has nothing got to do with land ownership.


No land from owner A is being taken or removed.


Land from owner B is being affected but he is happy and has agreed. If you want to know the reasons why he agreed, or think that he wouldn't agree - well he is a hypothetical person and we can assume he has agreed.



When the road changes, it will no longer border A's land. But A had no rights of way onto their land from the road anyway. But the point is that they could have potentially obtained that in the future.

I think your query is just a particular case of a more general issue. If a road is realigned in a way which doesn't take away my land, but diminishes the value of my land (by closing off access, or the possibility of access, or in any other way), what is my remedy?

SFAIK the answer is as given in post #2. The road authority carrying out the scheme that involves realignment of the road must publicise the scheme; any landowner who will be affected may object, and can seek compensation. The compensation due is the diminution in the value of the land attributable to the road scheme. If the landowner can't reach agreement with the road authority on what amount that is, they can go to arbitration. The statutory basis for this will vary depending on the nature of the work being done and the identity of the road authority doing the work, but I think the broad outline is the same in all cases.

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think your query is just a particular case of a more general issue. If a road is realigned in a way which doesn't take away my land, but diminishes the value of my land (by closing off access, or the possibility of access, or in any other way), what is my remedy?

SFAIK the answer is as given in post #2. The road authority carrying out the scheme that involves realignment of the road must publicise the scheme; any landowner who will be affected may object, and can seek compensation. The compensation due is the diminution in the value of the land attributable to the road scheme. If the landowner can't reach agreement with the road authority on what amount that is, they can go to arbitration. The statutory basis for this will vary depending on the nature of the work being done and the identity of the road authority doing the work, but I think the broad outline is the same in all cases.

Ok thanks :-)


That is both a logical and plausible answer.


My issue with post #2 had been that it talked about compensation for land being taken away. Which was not the case in this scenario. Well from A's perspective at least




I have heard plenty of cases for example where land was CPO'd for say a motorway and the landowner receives compensation for the land taken based on the area taken and maybe some extra compensation if it can be shown that his remaining land is diminished somehow.

I never heard of any specific cases for example where a road was cut off by a motorway and now a landowner lived down a lane rather than along a road and he got compensation even though his land wasn't taken. But that's not to say it has never happened - just that I don't know about it! I guess that in that case, the difficulty is proving the damage caused

4ensic15

There are numerous cases of businesses being compensated when access to their premises was reduced even though they didn't lose land themselves.