Re: Easement of Necessity/exclusion of LPA 1925

On 5 Nov 2005 02:32:22 -0800, fjmd1a@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>Charles Ellson wrote:
>> Would anyone care to confirm/deny/opine on whether a clause in a
>> Conveyance in the following style:-
>>
>> "No right or easement shall be implied over the [British Railways]
>> Board's adjoining railway land and s62 of the Law of Property Act 1925
>> shall not apply to this sale."
>>
>> ....prevents an easement of necessity (over land which is not a
>> railway line) for access to a section of land which would otherwise be
>> landlocked ? There is no adjoining highway to which access could be
>> obtained without going via other property.
>
>Tough. I'd want to look at the whole conveyance.

I'll have to work on an anonymised version (to prevent accusations of
"acting without authority", etc.) to post on a web-page.

>>From memory I think it
>is possible to convey an entirely land locked close with no easements
>for access if one does this expressly.
>

>20 years user might be the solution 8-).
>
Hmmm. How many times in 20 years ? It would probably be possible to
rustle up several people who have used the required route but that
might have to include a few years "illegal" use (the conveyance is
less than 20y ago) which IMU can sometimes count. OTOH two other
thoughts have occurred:-

-The wording "adjoining railway land" (rather than merely "adjoining
land") hints that it is addressing the matter of access over the
(still in use) railway line, thus preventing any requirement to
provide an accommodation crossing (a level crossing for private use by
an adjacent landowner).

-Does the clause merely prevent any easement being _created_ by the
conveyance, but with no effect on the pre-existing quasi-easement
enjoyed by BR ? This is a srip of land about 40-50ft by 440yds
adjacent to the railway which is one of three pieces of land conveyed
together which can be summed up as being originally one area of land
which has been conveyed without the station building, railway line and
the land under one bridge arch, the latter small area being where the
easement would be required. I I_____
I __ i
ASCII art time?:- I I i i DDDD
I I i i DDDD
I I i iiiiiiiiiiiDDDD
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCooooI Ioooi DDDD
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC I I iiiiiiiiiiiiiDDDD
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I I+++++++++++++++++++
I I
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBxI IxxEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB I I EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB I I EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB I I EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB I I EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB I I EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I I EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I I
C=landlocked area
B=conveyed land (part)
D=conveyed land (part)
B,C and D are all in the same conveyance
E=other land in common ownership with B,C,D
I=highway over a bridge
i=private road with existing easement by grant
+++++++ = railway line
ooooooo = easement required through bridge arch to enable the
landlocked area to be used - it cannot be used for a railway to the
west due to CCCC or currently to the east due to the presence of the
station buildings and platform (still in railway ownership)
xxxxxxx = route already in use for over 30 years

The following looks somewhat relevant-
"The Board hereby grants... a right (in common with the Board and all
others so entitled) on foot or by vehicle at all times and for all
purposes over and along the adjoining roadway [iiiii above].... to
enable access to and egress from the property...". Nothing in the
conveyance seems to specifically treat any one of the three pieces of
land in a less advantageous manner than any other.

There is a further clause to the effect that the landlocked area must
be provided with fencing (which is afterwards to be maintained) by the
purchaser, this would require access to the area to be provided for
over the route marked oooooo above.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Water company shafts heritage lines aspirations
    ... Clearly elements in the Council felt ... future potential use of that land by the party without an ... The power of Severn Trent Water, as with all other water authorities derives ... if there were to be realistic plans for that former railway ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Maple bats a hazard in baseball?
    ... its not a public domain application. ... the public domain section of the railway that would be another thing, ... on land owned by them in fee simple. ... the minerals were most often reserved in ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Squabble over old trackbed
    ... Trent) it doesn't mean it can easily be reinstated as a railway (or even ... has been declared to be a wildlife haven and to re-use it for any ... AIUI the requirement for alternative land is because a local authority has ... compensate the public is to give them an alternative piece of land. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: "Change is so rapid, the far future is now only five years away", re BBC
    ... it just requires that railway lines be built through ... commuter rail hubs which in turn feed commuters to and from ... The real problem is the real estate bubble that's made it ... houses on the largest patch of land they can possibly afford ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Property Dispute - Encroacher wont accept easement!
    ... As well as the driveway, ... Neighbor is hell bent on a land swap... ... the portion of the driveway on our property to access her garage. ... My lawyer drew up the easement and all is good, ...
    (sci.engr.surveying)
Loading