My house title extends from the middle of the back lane to the middle of the lane at the foot of a 15 ft wall at the other end of a long, thin plot
Section D of the title (Burdens) will provide a lot of the detail, and the yellow colouring is significant. It appears in the historic Railway Land Plan books, especially where the old (turnpike) road was re-routed and the railway usually bought extra land to build a bridge. Yellow meant no absolute title for the railway company - an historic right of access or title associated with the old road, blue is the colour for the main title
For my title, surveyed by Thomas Kyle, and from his dimensions alone (the maps being lost) I could draw-out a plan which perfectly fitted the current map. The back lane is specified as 9 feet wide, and for common or patent use by all connected properties. I own the solum under 4ft 6in of that width but cannot block the free ish and access of others over that land
From the titles the access road in from the public road is part owned by Braeside and part owned by the owner of the strip of land from which the plot for Craighead Cottage has been split-off. Hence it is split down the centre-line where the solum for Braeside is shown. What may also be relevant is the title for the strip of land. The brown coloured bit is the access to that strip maintained/secured for the owner of this land, possibly with rights for Craighead/Braeside to get access to their boundaries. A bit odd therefore that Braeside doesn't have the rest of the lane width shown as yellow, unless someone has slipped up setting out their access rights, especially if the lane is less than say 4 metres wide, or they need access to the small outbuilding to the North
It could be worth getting an accurate survey with a modern 'total station' instrument, I did this for the developer across the back lane, and challenged Glasgow Council's illegal use of the OS map to determine measurements relating to City Plan limits for overlooking, finding that the OS map was up to 1 metre adrift for the actual plan of the building, and the developer's plans showed the car park ramp 1 metre wider than it actually is, this stopped them sneaking in extra big oriel windows out over the lane and closer to my back gate, although they have violated the right of access from 'ground to sky' for the back lane should anyone fancy a pro bono case for rea meanus facultatis as neighbours can no longer get any HGV past the obstruction
In a second amusing tale with Sustrans, we were 'invited' to negotiate with the owners of 2 'recent' houses built on the old station site, who thought they jointly owned parts of the strip of land across the end of their cul de sac, through which Sustrans would need to make an access to the old railway. You get a certain sense about measurements, and alignments of fences, walls etc, and so I got the area accurately surveyed, and found out that the developer of the old goods yard had 'stolen' a strip from the land not sold to them by BR .... they were instead 'squatting' on Sustrans land. You can imagine their faces, when we suggested they might need to demolish a wall or two, and rebuild their houses. Elsewhere we got a few £'000 from a developer whose wall was 30-40 cm on to Sustrans site for around 8 metres, just to square-up the ownership.
Andrew (I think you have my e-mail) ioy looks like there is some serious land grabbing going on from the boundaries shown on the revised plan - who owns the strip of land heading North, and to the centre-line of the access? They have proposed erection of a fence on land which is not part of their property?
not resolved
posts
