TREES ON CROWN LAND

[waterbuoy]

To try and balance the view that the land has been 'stolen' by Crown Estate: 

Crown Estate assets are managed on behalf of us all, and any operating surplus is returned to the public purse.  In this instance there is a strong likelihood that the developer would have owed payments to HMRC when 'going bust'.  It could therefore be argued that the land at least particially represents the debt owed, and that it is in the interests of the public purse that the land is transferred this way rather than benefiting an individual (or individuals) whose property borders the land in question.  Similarly, it would be reasonable for any purchaser to pay the market value of the land, whatever that might be, as that wil provide the fairest income to central funds.

 

The Burges Salmon website advises the following under escheat:

 

We investigate and administer new escheat cases, as well as some of the many accumulated cases. Our aim is to protect The Crown Estate from risk and, where appropriate, return such property to private ownership. 

 

Escheat | Burges Salmon

WWW.BURGES-SALMON.COM

---

Our uniquely experienced escheat lawyers handle complex escheat property matters for The Crown Estate.

 

This confirms what I have previously stated - namely that CE is fundamentally averse to risk, and is why I suggested that you advise BS that you consider the trees pose a risk to your property (provided that is the case, and is not scaremongering).  

 

So far as who pays the legal fees, we previously bought a narrow strip of land from a developer.  The land could not have a new property built on it due to planning constraints, and measured just 4m by 5m.  However, it had a value to us as the purchase allowed us to extend the house into the original garden.  We had to pay the full legal fees (around £4k) plus a considerable amount for the land itself (particularly given its location).  Such is life, but ten years on it is already 'old money'.

 

Finally, it must also be remembered that here in the UK much of our legislation stems from historic legacy, even if things are slowly being modernised.   The first house I bought was previously owned by the Duke of Buccleuch and was therefore subject to a 'feu disposition'.  The finer detail of this was 'interesting' to put it mildly - for example, historically the Duke had the right to bed a bride before the groom (droit du seigneur) which I understand stems from medieval times!

 

[SarahD]

22 minutes ago, waterbuoy said:

To try and balance the view that the land has been 'stolen' by Crown Estate: 

Crown Estate assets are managed on behalf of us all, and any operating surplus is returned to the public purse.  In this instance there is a strong likelihood that the developer would have owed payments to HMRC when 'going bust'.  It could therefore be argued that the land at least particially represents the debt owed, and that it is in the interests of the public purse that the land is transferred this way rather than benefiting an individual (or individuals) whose property borders the land in question.  Similarly, it would be reasonable for any purchaser to pay the market value of the land, whatever that might be, as that wil provide the fairest income to central funds.

 

The Burges Salmon website advises the following under escheat:

 

We investigate and administer new escheat cases, as well as some of the many accumulated cases. Our aim is to protect The Crown Estate from risk and, where appropriate, return such property to private ownership. 

 

Escheat | Burges Salmon

WWW.BURGES-SALMON.COM

---

Our uniquely experienced escheat lawyers handle complex escheat property matters for The Crown Estate.

 

This confirms what I have previously stated - namely that CE is fundamentally averse to risk, and is why I suggested that you advise BS that you consider the trees pose a risk to your property (provided that is the case, and is not scaremongering).  

 

So far as who pays the legal fees, we previously bought a narrow strip of land from a developer.  The land could not have a new property built on it due to planning constraints, and measured just 4m by 5m.  However, it had a value to us as the purchase allowed us to extend the house into the original garden.  We had to pay the full legal fees (around £4k) plus a considerable amount for the land itself (particularly given its location).  Such is life, but ten years on it is already 'old money'.

 

Finally, it must also be remembered that here in the UK much of our legislation stems from historic legacy, even if things are slowly being modernised.   The first house I bought was previously owned by the Duke of Buccleuch and was therefore subject to a 'feu disposition'.  The finer detail of this was 'interesting' to put it mildly - for example, historically the Duke had the right to bed a bride before the groom (droit du seigneur) which I understand stems from medieval times!

 

I think it best I post pictures to see whether the considered opinion here is that the trees post a risk to my property.  They worry me, but then I'm not knowledgeable enough to assess the risk properly.  

 

And, I agree, that buying the land would probably long-term add a value to the house, even with a caveat of no development, but the mortgage etc is enough right now.    Maybe one day in the future. 

 

When you say you had to pay a considerable amount for your land because of it's location, what do you mean?  

 

I've heard about  'droit du seigneur' before and, I'm assuming, later legislation nulled the original laws.  

Edited June 19, 2022 by SarahD
grammar

[Stere]

Alot of places round here the local estates have apparently retained both the sporting rights and mineral  ones to peoples otherwise private back gardens etc.

 

 

[AHPP]

I'd worry about being reported.  

To whom?

[SarahD]

7 minutes ago, AHPP said:

To whom?

To the local authority.  As I said in an earlier post, I saw another householder on the estate gradually clear away trees (very small area that probably doubled the length of his handkerchief-sized back garden) and then eventually fence off the area, only later to then set the fence back to what I think was the original boundary.  Nobody would go to the expense of this unless they received some kind of official warning.  

[SarahD]

26 minutes ago, Stere said:

Alot of places round here the local estates have apparently retained both the sporting rights and mineral  ones to peoples otherwise private back gardens etc.

 

 

Ah, I see.  Couldn't believe my eyes when somebody posted on local FB page that ground underneath road or pavement was up for sale.  Had to check it wasn't April 1.  It was later withdrawn I believe, although not sure why, but it did create some agitation from the residents.

 

[waterbuoy]

2 hours ago, SarahD said:

When you say you had to pay a considerable amount for your land because of it's location, what do you mean?  

 

I've heard about  'droit du seigneur' before and, I'm assuming, later legislation nulled the original laws.  

 

I was meaning that we paid well above true market value - by a factor of two or so - because we wanted to buy the land, ie willing buyer and reluctant seller.

 

Our deeds still had the droit de seigneur clause in them.  At that time the then Duke of Buccleuch was housebound so we didn't consider it to be much of a possibility!

 

Retaining mineral rights is pretty much standard in most former estate owned land

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, waterbuoy said:

The first house I bought was previously owned by the Duke of Buccleuch and was therefore subject to a 'feu disposition'.  The finer detail of this was 'interesting' to put it mildly

I don't think that is much different from a covenant in english freeholds, the Duke's estate can prevent certain developments on the land.

[SarahD]

Here are some photos.  I'm not sure if they are adequate enough.  The four whose trunk/canopy are taller than the house seem to be a fir, two cherries, the fourth  (first image), I've no idea what it.  All the trees are intertwining.  Second image shows edge of my boundary and the start of the first tree.  Sitting to the back of these is a a few elderflower and two rowans, which are manageable.

[john87]

This may be of interest..

https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Adverse-Possesion-Talk-Notes-Title.pdf

 

john..