Are there any disadvantages or advantages to "owning" road alongside property

Donald Trump

Hi,


General question.


Suppose an individual has two fields on opposite sides of a country road. The legal folio then contains these two fields and the land under the road.


If the person was to sell one of them, are there any disadvantages or advantages to drawing the new boundary on one or other side of the road vs down the centre of the road


From the perspective of they buyer, would they prefer to have it drawn in the middle (technically increasing the size by a small amount) or should they even care about it? Would there be any scenario where it might matter?

Apiarist

Donald Trump wrote: »

If the person was to sell one of them, are there any disadvantages or advantages to drawing the new boundary on one or other side of the road vs down the centre of the road

Just my opinion -- if this is a public road, the boundary should go through the centre of the road because the road itself is not owned by the field owner(s).

Donald Trump

victor8600 wrote: »

Just my opinion -- if this is a public road, the boundary should go through the centre of the road because the road itself is not owned by the field owner(s).

Well the question is whether or not that has any implications for the owners of the adjoining lands. For example, should a buyer (or seller) insist on the boundary being in the middle for any reason?



(Slightly tangential point but I think that people do own the area under the roads. But not in the sense that they are can do what they want with that land. But they do still "own" it)

Victor

victor8600 wrote: »

Just my opinion -- if this is a public road, the boundary should go through the centre of the road because the road itself is not owned by the field owner(s).

The land under roads is often owned by adjacent owners, especially in rural areas. There is simply a right of way on it and/or the road is in the charge of the council.

If a landowner doesn't own the land under a road they are dependent on, they are at risk of having their access cut off if the right of way is closed.

Apiarist

Donald Trump wrote: »

Slightly tangential point but I think that people do own the area under the roads. But not in the sense that they are can do what they want with that land. But they do still "own" it

Well, yes. In the case of your "individual", she/he owns the land under the road between the two fields. What I meant by my comment is since the road itself is not owned by the owners of adjacent lands, it is logical to put the border in the middle of the road, as putting the border at the edge of the road makes no difference -- the owner of the adjacent land (and not the "owner" of the land) still has the same responsibilities to maintain trees/hedges etc even if the land just under the road is owned by somebody else.

Donald Trump

victor8600 wrote: »

Well, yes. In the case of your "individual", she/he owns the land under the road between the two fields. What I meant by my comment is since the road itself is not owned by the owners of adjacent lands, it is logical to put the border in the middle of the road, as putting the border at the edge of the road makes no difference -- the owner of the adjacent land (and not the "owner" of the land) still has the same responsibilities to maintain trees/hedges etc even if the land just under the road is owned by somebody else.

So basically you are saying that if I was to buy one field and the seller was splitting it into two folios and was redrawing the boundary so that the entire portion covered by road under his folio, there would be no reason why I might want to say "actually, I want it drawn down the middle". Or, on the other side, if I was a seller, I should have no reason to feel any different between leaving the boundary on my side, the middle, or the far side of the road?


I think that a few years ago, some neighbours had bits of land CPO'd for some road improvements. All the CPOs were published in the paper. But one who had a very small bit CPO'd didn't appear to have anything taken from him. At the time, someone told me it was because the bit that was taken from him was actually already covered by the road! Still, it had been necessary to include it for some reason

Victor

Donald Trump wrote: »

So basically you are saying that if I was to buy one field and the seller was splitting it into two folios and was redrawing the boundary so that the entire portion covered by road under his folio, there would be no reason why I might want to say "actually, I want it drawn down the middle". Or, on the other side, if I was a seller, I should have no reason to feel any different between leaving the boundary on my side, the middle, or the far side of the road?

The problem is that you can end up with a 'ransom strip' - land between your site and the road.