Who owns the beach in front of my house

[Beachlife55]

Anyone know anything about the use of the foreshore? I live next door but one to a restaurant and face the beach. The restaurant have just put 2 huge tables wit attached seating so not moveable, along with windbreak and parasols, on the beach directly in front of my house. I asked the Planning department and they said the restaurant was fine to do this as it's an area that people socialise in already. They already have tables on the pathway in front of their restaurant. To me this sounds dodgy and I am trying to pursue it by finding out about beach ownership. I think I read somewhere that the property owner owns the beach above the high water mark in front of their house, and the Crown owns it between high and low water mark. And it can't be used for commercial purposes. Looking for advice before I take this further but don't know what to do next.

I’d be tempted to use non drying paint on the seats…….

No way would I back down. If they are intimidating I would point out that they are the ones with a business and you hope their patrons like really loud music with loads of cursing and smoke from your new fire pit. Give them an fyi that you're organising a community wide water fight on a weekly basis for the foreseeable. Even if you don't own the beach noone can stop you playing music in your garden. I recommend linken park

I am such a jerk, I'd have a kids party and just let them run around in the area at their peak busy time.

So, when people here (I'm in AZ) want to keep people away from certain areas they play Baby Shark on repeat. I'm not joking, it works wonders. Just sayin. 10th time hearing baby shark on loud and they are going to lose their minds.

I've always wanted to go to a MN barbecue with sweary bunting - how about it OP? 😊

So @Beachlife55 are you going to formalise an objection or just venting to us? Which is fine if householders are intimidated by these creeping restaurants.

It is very Mafia like if you are.

Perhaps change it up every half hour with the wheels on the bus, 99 bottles of beer on the wall

If the Council have said it's a public space for people to socialize then the restaurant can probably put up tables for "takeaway" customers. However they would not be able to restrict access to the beach, say that the seats are for customers only, nor prevent you from having huge parties there including a BBQ. I'm sure having loads of noisy kids in the space will make them reconsider.

We have a similar problem with "Tap Rooms" in my local town. The pedestrianised area now has tables on where people sit and drink. They do have pavement licences but it's vague as to the area that it's limited to.

I'd probably embarrass them on my local FB page by putting up a photo of your "seaview" of the PUBLIC beach. FB is so full of indignation that it will spark a huge debate and people will tag Councillors saying it ought not to be allowed... Public beach etc.

Or by moving the tables towards the sea at night... 🤭 It's amazing what gets washed out to sea when there's an unexpected high tide...

Beach ownership won't show on the deeds (title plan), as the land registry use OS maps. It's for the same reason that householders own to the middle of the highway, although only the bit beneath the surface if it's a public highway. that too doesn't show on the title plan.

This is from the legal textbook Halsbury's Laws:

The boundary line between the seashore and the adjoining land is, in the absence of usage or evidence to the contrary, the line of the median high tide between the ordinary spring and neap tides.
The boundary of land abutting upon the seashore may vary from time to time, and in the case of a conveyance of land described as bounded by the seashore, then, as the medium high and low water marks shift, so does the boundary of the land shift also; for there may be a movable freehold. This rule applies whether or not the grant of the land adjoining the seashore is accompanied by a map showing the boundary or contains a parcels clause stating the area of the land and whether or not the original boundary can be identified, but a fixed boundary may result if clear words and an intention so to do are shown in the conveyance.
The boundary of the seashore or foreshore with the high seas is probably the median low tide between the ordinary spring and neap tides.

Even better!

Also their alcohol licence will stipulate where they can serve alcohol. It is usually (but not always) up to the curtliage of their property and this will be shown on a plan in their submission, which should be available online.

Breaching your licence to sell alcohol is as serious offence. The DPS could lose their personal licence.

Contact licensing enforcement.

Interesting reading but I know for a fact that ownership of a beach or part of a beach is in title deeds. I know because it is in our Deeds!

@Collaborate ”It's for the same reason that householders own to the middle of the highway, although only the bit beneath the surface if it's a public highway. that too doesn't show on the title plan.”

In my experience if you own to the middle of the highway it’s shown on your title plan. Most roads etc. are owned by local authorities.

It might well show up in some deeds. Doesn't mean to say that it shows in all deeds, and especially not in Land Registry title plans that follow OS maps and therefore record physical boundary features rather than invisible boundaries.

I'm going to have to call you out on that one. Title deeds never show ownership to the centre of the road if it is a public highway. Notwithstanding that a legal presumption applies so as to give "ownership" of the land to the middle of the road in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A title plan stopping at the pavement is not evidence to the contrary. This is what Halsbury's Laws says about this :

The first presumption is that the boundary is, as a general rule, a line drawn along the middle of the highway or private right of way. This arises because the owners of land adjoining the highway or way are presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to own the subsoil as far as the middle of the road and the airspace above the soil subject only to the right of passage over the surface and the rights of the highway authority. The presumption obtains also where the land was formerly of copyhold tenure and the better view is that it also applies in the case of leaseholders.

The second presumption is that subsoil up to the centre of the highway will pass in a conveyance or transfer without express mention; the mere fact that a conveyance describes land as being bounded by a highway or that measurements or a plan by reference to which land is conveyed exclude any part of the highway will not rebut the presumption, for it would be absurd to suppose that the grantor retained the soil of the highway, which in nearly every case would be wholly valueless. However, the presumption may readily yield to indications of a contrary intention, as in the case of the conveyance of a plot on a building estate.

These presumptions apply under the general boundaries rule in the case of registered land, but it is not the practice of the Land Registry to show the half-width of the highway as being within the title so the boundary line shown on a Land Registry plan does not rebut the presumption.

It does say “in the absence of any evidence to the contrary”. So where Local Authorities etc. have registered roads there is evidence to the contrary.

I have in the past seen Land Registry filed plans that do include part of the road, but acknowledge these may be historic and not defined as public highways.

So you cannot say they never show ownership to the centre of the road because some do.

It’s probably more analogous to riparian ownership. Although some deeds include watercourses the Land Registry policies and practices on this have changed over the years and often plans will show a redline boundary on the bank, but in fact ownership of the bed is up to the centre line of the watercourse.

so both posters above are probably right. Some filed plans may include beach, roads, watercourses etc in the redline but where they don’t there is a separate presumption on ownership.

not that any of that helps, but it’s nice to get my property law geek on!

However, the presumption may readily yield to indications of a contrary intention, as in the case of the conveyance of a plot on a building estate.

Emphasis added.

My parents live on an estate that was built in the 1970s. I had reason to look at the title register a little while ago and it was clear when it talked about rights involving sewers and drains that the pavement and road at the front of the property still belonged to the building company when the house was first sold.

It also speaks of the right being reserved by the building company to alter the position of any roads on the estate at any time but with the provision that:

"but not so as to prejudice to any material extent the access between the property hereby conveyed and a public highway"

The roads were later adopted by the local council so I really don't believe that ownership of the land extends to half way across the road in this case.

The overwhelming majority of highways are not owned by the Local Authority. The LA or the Highways Agency has rights over land designated as highways but they certainly don’t own the vast majority of them.

Anyway, OP’s thread is about ownership of the beach. As far as I can tell it is quite possible OP own up to the high tide mark. OP should take some proper legal advice.

I agree the op should take legal advice but it’s worth £3 to check if it is registered. A legal professional would charge the £3 plus their time.

😂

I agree. I live on a private road on which the houses were built in the 1920s. We all own up to the centre of the road along the frontage of our properties. The deeds state that this continues until the road is adopted by the local council, but it still hasn’t been (and is unlikely to ever be adopted as we all prefer to continue as a private road).

There is some really shit advice on this thread, Google is not everyone’s friend on a whistle stop HMLR education it would seem!

OP, you need a shit hot real estate solicitor.

It is impossible where I am in Scotland to build eg a bathing hut or a holiday chalet on or near the beach.if you could the shore would be full of holiday huts. So probably the benches shouldn’t be there either. Or loads of people would stick their own personal seats or benches there.

"There is some really shit advice on this thread..."

That's interesting to hear. What advice do you think is wrong?