http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-16962119 

I'd be more worried if someone we've never heard of bought the rights and I owned several hectares...


[mod]Thread title changed to make it a bit more sensationalist ;)[/mod]

---

I think Mr Lipscomb needs to get out more, rather than worrying about Prince Charles opening a new mine under his house. 😉

Mr. Lipscombe ought to be having a chat with his conveyencer rather than grumbling about the Duchy having these rights.

If he didn't know, that's hardly the Duchy's fault!

Chris.

The conveyancer needs a little word in their ear. It does show that either he didn't listen or didn't ask. Ask almost everyone in Cornwall do they own the mineral rights under their property and the answer will in many cases be no. One can hardly have a moan at the legal owner of the minerals when the legal people didn't mention it. Time for some compensation ....

---

Title modified to reflect the panic expressed in the article!

If I recall correctly, I don't have the benefit of the mining rights under my house - should I be contacting the BBC?

Then again, I'm sensible enough to realise that mineral rights are just that - rights to the minerals, not rights that extend to digging under my house and making it fall down.

I would be very surprised if there are that many homeowners who do actually own the mineral rights under their property?

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-16962119

I'd be more worried if someone we've never heard of bought the rights and I owned several hectares...


[mod]Thread title changed to make it a bit more sensationalist ;)[/mod]

Prince Charles planting a mine under peoples homes!

This is landowner harassment.
Obviously a conspiracy somewhere.

Maybe set to go off when the central heating comes on, very devious.

---

The Duchy is not the only mineral owner who is registering their mineral rights. I know of one owner who will be mining (at some stage in the future) .... and hopefully under a load of nice new properties that have gone up in Camborne !

---

Hmmm.... wonder how long it'll be before we get a similar panic round here when the Duchies of Lancaster, Devonshire, and Rutland register their ownership of lead-bearing veins, as confirmed by the 1851 and 1852 acts?

---

If I recall correctly, I don't have the benefit of the mining rights under my house - should I be contacting the BBC?

Too right. I'm drafting a letter tonight to my regional station, East Midlands Today. Other people in Derby may write to Midlands Today, depending on which transmitter thay can access. All part of the plot to dilute the effect of the protest by forcing the plebs to watch the news "where you live", as Hugh Edwards would say. To be honest people in the East Midlands Today area of Derby don't give a sh*t about mineral rights as all you could mine would be Keuper Marl, at least for a few hundred feet.

According to some of the press articles on this subject, there is a deadline for registration of Mineral Rights hence why this topic came up.
Although this doesn't seem to be mentioned in Land Registry guidance, if it were the case one wonders what would happen in the case of unregistered mineral rights. As I understand it, all land & minerals in the UK belongs to the Crown UNLESS you can prove title otherwise. As certainly there are areas in Cornwall where past exploration companies were totally unable to trace mineral ownership, probably because estates have fragmented & perhaps become extinct, does this mean that technically such minerals revert to the Crown?
The concern is that, apart from the Forest of Dean, the Crown mineral agents appear to be not particularly enamoured with the idea of recreational mine exlporation.

I would presume that rights would revert to the Crown unless claimed, yes.

With regard to the Crown Estate's attitude to recreational mine explorers, I'd concur that they are not going to be welcoming; and that they wouldn't willingly enter into access agreements with groups.

Similarly, I'd also worry that they have the financial ability to secure adits rather better than most.

However, there is often a distinction between mineral rights and land ownership, in that adits are more likely to be the responsibility of the landowner rather than the mineral rights owner - therefore this step might not be a worrisome as it might at first appear.

---

That is an interesting question!

Take the example of a gated adit. The gate prevents entry into the mine therefore it is protecting the mineral owners' property!

Take that one step further. If the mine adit is not gated, who is reponsible for it then? At what point does the "ownership" transfer from land owner to mine owner?

As I understand it, all land & minerals in the UK belongs to the Crown UNLESS you can prove title otherwise.

As I understand it, minerals are held to be in the same ownership as the surface unless specifically seperated.

"With regard to the Crown Estate's attitude to recreational mine explorers, I'd concur that they are not going to be welcoming; and that they wouldn't willingly enter into access agreements with groups." Depends upon the attitude of he local mineral agent; experience suggests you are, unfortuntalet, all too right though.

"I'd also worry that they have the financial ability to secure adits rather better than most." Very, very true. The Crown Estate turns a profit of £90 to £100 million p.a. so if local agents spend a few thousand her and there on grilles (they tend to grill rather than agte) and fences then it doesn't exactly dent the overall income.

"Take the example of a gated adit. The gate prevents entry into the mine therefore it is protecting the mineral owners' property!"

And, more pertiently in this modern age, it is proptecting the liability of the mineral owner and/or landowner.

"If the mine adit is not gated, who is reponsible for it then?"

Usually the mineral owner. Or, more prosaically in this modern age, the wealthiest interest associated with the land in question - that's who a claimant's solicitor will target!

"At what point does the "ownership" transfer from land owner to mine owner!" As I understand it, the mineral owner remains liable - but an opportunist solicitor will likely sue any and all of the interests that might be financially worth pursuing!

As in any discussion of this nature, the phrase 'as I understand it' = 'I think but I'm not sure'

Needs a lawyer I think. 🙂

Most of us in Cornwall are used to being undermined one way or another ::)

---

It would be intersting (academically) to ascertain what proportion of the mineral rights over the UK remain in the same ownership as the surface. Up until the late 19thC it was probably true that in most cases it was the same, when most property was held by large estates, but since that date a very large proportion of the surface has been sold off by large estates either for economic reasons or because of changes in land tenure law. However, certainly in mining areas such as the South West, in the vast majority of cases the estates kept the minerals, either because they were not worth selling, were producing an income & were not affected by the change in legislation, or were coinsidered of possible future value.
I suspect practically all surface property owners, except the owners of large long-standing estates, will find in their deeds "minerals reserved" or something to that effect.

In most leases the mineral belongs to the mineral owner until it is broken from the ground, then it passes to the mine owner, who may be another person altogether.

The mine owner is the person entitled for the time being to work the mineral - and what belongs to him? - plant and machinery and the space left after the mineral has been removed.

The M & Q Act had a requirement to provide an efficient barrier to accidental entry into adits (or falling down shafts) but that didn't apply to miscellaneous mines where no work had been carried on since August 9th 1872. It also needn't be done until 12 months after the mine had last worked (during which time it seems no-one could accidentally enter or fall in ::).

Some years ago our county council had a guy who spent his days looking for any possible open or unsafe mine entries. He regularly dropped into our (NCB) offices with claims of unsafe shafts and levels which we were not maintaining as required but on each occasion we were able to show that he was wrong. Eventually he " got us" - or so he thought. He triumphantly reported that "Montreal mine at Cleator Moor has two open, unfenced, shafts, 40 feet deep to the rubbish. It was a coal mine, what are you gonna do about it?" "Nowt!" "But you've got to, or I'll report it to the mines inspector". "Please yourself, it was a coal - and haematite - mine, until 1926, but until 1946 it worked only the ore so the onus is on the last operator to secure it". He didn't seem to get far with the mineral owner either so the county filled it themselves - and the last time I saw boyo he was holding a stop-go lollipop on some roadworks.

Presumably in most cases ownership of mines is only different from of minerals where a lease in is force to a mine operator which has made those particular mine workings.
Coal & Royal metals of course complicate the issue.
Would the owner of minerals - say fireclay or ironstone - in a coal mining area have a right to use coal mine workings to access those minerals, or would he either have to seek some sort of wayleave from the Coal Authority, or alternately make his own seperate access?
I have been informed that in areas having different undivided mineral owners (ie where there are several owners each having a certain share in the minerals over a given area, very common in Cornwall) to access mines in that area you only need to gain permission from one of the owners.
There are cases where in addition to seperate Royal Metals/Coal ownership, rights to different metals were held by different owners. For example near Perranporth minerals in certain areas were owned by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter except for tin which was owned by the Duke of Buckingham. Whether these rights also extended to mines for the different metals I don't know, effectively the different metals were accessed from the same shafts. This seems to have been seperate from customary rights such as Tin Bounds, which nowadays are to all intents extinct (although of course Customary Rights in areas such as Derbyshire and the Forest of Dean are perhaps still in force).

"The mine owner is the person entitled for the time being to work the mineral - and what belongs to him? - plant and machinery and the space left after the mineral has been removed."

Case law established that voids resulting from extraction of minerals remain in the ownership of the mineral owner. A number of cases concerning the drainage of water through old workings turned on this finding.

"Would the owner of minerals - say fireclay or ironstone - in a coal mining area have a right to use coal mine workings to access those minerals..."

Prior to the nationalisation of coal in 1938, very likely the ironstone, fireclay and coal would have been held by a single mineral owner (though exceptions surely occur somewhere...) so this issue would not arise. Post-1938, access via coal workings to exploit, say, fireclay or ironstone would have, I believe, had to have been obtained from the Coal Commission (1938-1946), the National Coal Board (1947 on) and latterly the Coal Authority. Underclay is practicaly unworkable without also removing coal so a licence would in any case have had to be obtained from the Coal Commission and successors from 1938 anyway.

"...or would he either have to seek some sort of wayleave from the Coal Authority..."

As the Coal Authority owns both unworked coal and the voids resulting from the working of coal, any underground access that passed through a coal seam or void in a seam would presumably be potentially required to secure permission from the Coal Authority - and a licence to work coal if the seam was unworked. Underground access through other strata would require permission from the mineral owner - i.e. not the Coal Authority but whoever inherited the residual minerals after coal was nationalised in 1938. Case law has established that clay, inter-seam shale and sandstone, etc. are generally held to fall within the defination of minerals if such strata had a value at the time such minerals were leased.

Its all very fertile ground for lawyers!

Removal of coal in any circumstances requires a licence from CA. During BC days a limestone quarry with a thin seam was licenced to remove this coal and the workings were surveyed by the local BCOE just as they did prior to removal by contractors on their own sites.