A rule of thumb, not a rule of law: indicative plans and boundaries

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has refused an application to determine the exact line of a boundary by reference to a “15 feet” measurement on a conveyance plan. As the plan was “for the purpose of identification only”, the measurement was indicative, not exact. The tribunal instead determined that the actual boundary followed a fence erected soon after the conveyance under a fencing covenant. 

The decision is a reminder that indicative plans do not fix boundaries, and that physical structures and features such as fences can be useful context and strong evidence of intention.

Background

In 1987, the Butler Estate conveyed a strip of land near Colne to Mr Cronshaw, the owner of the neighbouring property. The plan (corrected by a 2000 deed of rectification) was a basic sketch marked “Distance B – C – 15 feet”. The conveyance also included a fencing covenant.

The neighbouring owners, the Cunninghams, applied under rule 118 of the Land Registration Rules 2003 for a determined boundary drawn exactly 15 feet from an old fence line, a line that it transpires ran through a shed in situ on the strip at the date of the conveyance (as revealed in the factual evidence). 

The Issues

Was the “15 feet” reference exact? Did structures on the ground at the time of the conveyance provide context to aid construction? Did later conduct, notably the erection of a fence, provide evidence of intention?

The Decision

Judge D’Cruz asked what a reasonable person, plan in hand, would have understood the boundary to be on the date of the conveyance, not at the date of rectification.

The judgment contained a useful reminder – “If a plan is included, the parcels clause will often state either that the property conveyed is “more particularly described” or “delineated” or “defined” on the plan, or that the plan is “for the purpose of identification only”. In the former instance, the plan will prevail over the written description; in the latter, the written description will prevail over the plan.”

The plan in question (appended to the 1987 conveyance) was a basic sketch with one measurement and no stated starting point and was described as “for the purpose of identification only” - so the tribunal held that the “15 feet” was indicative only.

Preferring a neighbour’s oral evidence to untested written statements, the tribunal found that a shed and carport did exist in 1987, and accordingly a reasonable purchaser would not have understood the boundary to cut through the shed (which is where the applicants argued the boundary was). 

Furthermore, a fence erected relatively soon after completion of the conveyance under the fencing covenant (which remained in situ until 2002) was “probative subsequent conduct”, and evidence of an intention that the boundary would be along the fence (or at least became so by later agreement). If the parties did not intend the boundary to run along the fence, “some action would surely have been taken”. 

The applicants therefore failed to establish the precise boundary they had claimed. Their application was cancelled, the title plan remained subject to the general boundaries rule, and they were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs.

Significance

The decision applies established Court of Appeal principles: 

1. Construing a deed is an exercise in determining what the parties to it intended, and the deed must be construed objectively and in context (Pennock v Hodgson);
2. It is permissible to have regard to subsequent conduct where the deed is unclear (Ali v Lane); and
3. The “reasonable layman” test – “what would the reasonable layman think he was in fact buying?” (Toplis v Green).

As a First-tier Tribunal decision, it is not binding, although it serves as a useful reminder. 

Practical Implications

• Do not assume that you can rely on an indicative plan to determine a boundary.
• To help determine a boundary, inspect the site in person and review any available historic context.
• Untested written evidence will likely carry less weight than oral evidence. 

Key Takeaways

• A measurement on an “identification only” plan is likely to be indicative, not exact.
• Structures on the ground at the conveyance date can provide useful context.
• Subsequent conduct including physical features such as fences can be strong evidence of intention.

Cunningham v Holehouse [2026] UKFFT 771 (PC)

This article was co-written by Isabel Ferrier (trainee solicitor at CMS)