Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Fence ownership
We live on the odd numbered side of Frobisher Road and were wondering if anyone knew which side of the back garden fence we're responsible for. We've tried to find the deeds to the house and can't seem to locate those and the Land Registry hasn't been particularly useful either. One side of the fence was badly damaged in the storms a few weeks back and we're trying to work out if it's our responsibility to get it fixed!
NOTE FROM SITE ADMIN
To summarise this conversation.
1. Side boundaries - owners are responsible for the fence on the Green Lanes side of the garden. For south facing gardens, this is the left-hand side as you look out of your back window towards the back of your garden. For north facing gardens, this is the right-hand side as you look out of your back window towards the back of your gardens.
This seems to be the rule across the whole Ladder.
2. Rear boundaries - for the north part of the Ladder (up to the north/odds side of Hewitt Road), the rear fence is the responsibility of those with south facing gardens (the exception being numbers 1 - 29 Hewitt Road where the rule is reversed for some reason).
For the south part of the Ladder (from the south/evens side of Hewitt Road), those with north facing gardens are responsible.
This information is taken from the maps held by HoL and produced by the British and Company when the land was first developed.
Tags for Forum Posts: boundary fence, property boundaries, rules about fences
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by MD on
-
We're on the right as you drive down towards Willoughby, so we have a south facing back garden, north facing front.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Sydney & Raleigh Roads aren't on the No 2 map, or any of the others, that I have.
The British Land maps show that on all the other Ladder roads, owners of south-facing back gardens were responsible for the left hand fence.
Sydney & Raleigh we’re amongst the first Ladder roads to be built up. It could be that they’ve are unique on the Ladder in respect of the fence ownership.
It's interesting that your title plan actually shows its T-marks. All the title plans I've seen for the Ladder seem to miss out on this, including one I have for Sydney.
H M Registry Guidance says:
If the ‘-T-marks are expressly referred to in the deeds lodged for registration then we will reproduce them on the title plan and refer to them in the register.
So the mark/s should be there, but generally they seem not to be. It's interesting to read the following on boundary-problems.co.uk:
The title plan does NOT normally show T-marks: I have only once seen T-marks on a title plan.
My own deeds are the same. The deeds mention the T-mark, but the marks are not shown on the title plan. This is the case for the other Ladder deeds I've seen.
My land registry entry and all others for the Ladder will almost certainly make specific reference to a conveyance between the original purchaser and the British Land Company. Normally the reference will include specific mention of the covenants on that conveyance. These are usually reproduced in the schedule of restrictive covenants, the first of which is 'Fences'. This covenant will reproduce the stipulations about fence responsibility, including the T-marks, made by the British Land Company in the original conveyance. So the British Land Map is a reliable go-to information source.
It could be that subsequent owners have made new boundary agreements where boundary/fence ownership has been changed from that specified by the British Land Company. In that case I would have thought you'd see a record of the change in your title deeds registry entry.
Either way, your situation is interesting. I'd be really grateful, if you don't mind, if you could snap a copy of your title plan with your phone-camera and send me a copy. You can get me at hugh(at)harringayonline.com. Many thanks.
-
-
-
Hi Miriam, property owners with south facing gardens were originally responsible for the rear fence, at least on the Hornsey Station Estate as can be seen from the map (represented by T signs). You can also see that owners are responsible for all fences on the right hand side for north facing gardens and left hand side for south facing gardens (looking out to the garden).
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Yes I have that too but it doesn't show the alleyway that definitely exists and you can still see bits of. Also, those back gardens in Lausanne do not line up with the back gardens in Frobisher as the map shows. You back onto two neighbours.
-
-
-
-
My understanding of what's being shown there is your reference to a mismatch of the north south boundaries of the houses on Lausanne and Frobisher.
It's clear that this is the case. However, my understanding is that your principal point was that there used to be an alley running between the gardens. It's this that I can find no evidence for and I don't think the example from Google Maps helps.
It is however very interesting from a historical point of view. It shows the different use the purchasers made of the plots they bought. The development undertaken on Lausanne was below the density suggested by the number of plots sold and on Frobisher it exceeded it.
The British Land map shows that 49 plots were sold along the southern side of Lausanne. This corresponds with 49 directly behind them on Frobisher (in fact in total there were 50 plots on the northern side of Frobisher, but the most easterly one backed on to the side of a Green Lanes plot so it doesn't figure in this discussion).
Turning now to what happened during the housing development phase, Google maps shows that 47 houses were built on those 49 plots along the southern side of Lausanne. Backing on to these, 57 houses were built on the 49 plots on the northern side of Frobisher. Number 17 Frobisher is unusually wide with a garage on the side and number 59 is double-fronted.
These figures confirm what seems evident from Google, that houses of different widths were built on the two roads. This means that the north-south boundaries of the gardens don't marry up exactly.
Nonetheless an interesting diversion from which I've learned something. So thank you.
-
-
My "evidence" for the alley theory is primarily from the north of the ladder. You can see little doors sometimes off the passage. A house I know on Lausanne has an odd annex at the back "into" the neighbours. Except that this annex continues for a bit, like the fence hit a chicane.
-
-
All sounds reasonable, but I don't think it was allowed for in the land sale and it's difficult to image those money-hungry late victorian investors subsequently ceding land to create an alley.
-
-
I wouldn't even describe it as an alley (though it might appear as one initially in the passage e.g. between Hampden and Raleigh). In my garden we have one fence at the rear, however in neighbouring gardens, they have two fences with a "space" between them of less than a foot. It's strange and to my mind, unnecessary.
-
-
I haven’t seen British Land’s Map No 1 which covers the very top end. I wonder if both sides were stipulated to add a rear fence or whether the situation has just developed like that over the years.
-
-
-
Well spotted. I hadn’t noticed that. Perhaps that explains what John’s been seeing. I suspect that might have been a single buy-to-build investor who thought they’d use the proximity of the Passage to give their properties an extra feature.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
