• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What are the strange structures in this photo?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
I too think they are supports... but for the poles themselves, which were erected to hold the window shields up.
The water tower seems to have some things on its top, but I wouldn't really expect a floodlamp to be particularly recognisable at that distance. I don't see any structures dumped by a road junction...

There is a lamp just in front of the water tower. Between the water tower and the camera. Not sure it would have been a bright one, but it’s in the right place for the boards to be directly shielding the windows they theoretically apply to.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
Already been explained that the screen would block light for what, maybe half an hour in the very early morning and probably only in summer. Also the land being “protected” seems to be common land with common access. Extremely unlikely in my view.
Which is why I pointed out that it is a token obstruction of the view (but setting a legal precedent). And I certainly do not think it is common land, there are walls where it abuts a road and some trees between it and the railway lines..
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Which is why I pointed out that it is a token obstruction of the view (but setting a legal precedent). And I certainly do not think it is common land.

It’s got a staircase down into it giving common access, and what look like pigeon lofts. On closer inspection there is also what appears to be a washing line to the north of the “lofts”.

Regardless of specific ownership, I think it’s unlikey to be owned by the railway.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
Which is why I pointed out that it is a token obstruction of the view (but setting a legal precedent).
It does seem that this might be the case.

Google Books offers access to a book titled "The Architect in Practice" by David Chappell and Andrew Willis. I can't copy from it, presumably for copyright reasons, but section 9.6.6 Rights of Light begins:

"Sometimes called 'ancient lights'. This ... entitles an owner to prevent his neighbour building so as to obstruct the flow of light through particular windows. The right is ... only in respect of the window openings.
....

The existence of a building with rights of light on adjoining land can put severe constraints on the development potential of a site. ... At one time, it was necessary to erect a screen to block the light to prevent the right being acquired."


The "at one time" refers to before the Rights of Light Act 1959. So such a process was known, although how legally effective the small screens visible in the photos would have been is still a moot point.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
It’s got a staircase down into it giving common access, and what look like pigeon lofts. On closer inspection there is also what appears to be a washing line to the north of the “lofts”. Regardless of specific ownership, I think it’s unlikey to be owned by the railway.
Agreed there are steps inside the plot, but any built outside would block the lane, which is why I suggested that the tenants might have brought their own ladder with them each time to gain access. I still think it is railway land partly from the absence of an eastern boundary on the various maps and partly because it's not very well separated from the running lines.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
If the theory that the screens are to prevent the owner(s) of the houses establishing a right to light is correct, it doesn't need the land to be in railway ownership, only that it is in different ownership from the houses so that a future dispute might occur.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Agreed there are steps inside the plot, but any built outside would block the lane, which is why I suggested that the tenants might have brought their own ladder with them each time to gain access. I still think it is railway land partly from the absence of an eastern boundary on the various maps and partly because it's not very well separated from the running lines.

It’s a shame one can’t make a free enquiry at the Land Registry to find out. It would make a lot of sense if the land really was railway-owned, even if it was owned purely on a speculative basis.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
. It would make a lot of sense if the land really was railway-owned, even if it was owned purely on a speculative basis.
I suspect not speculative, just a corner of the oblong plot that was bought but not needed for railway operations. That may be why Kingston St (Northeast of the tracks) was built where it was - and was less than half the length of the railway plot.
 

Ianigsy

Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Messages
1,104
It’s a shame one can’t make a free enquiry at the Land Registry to find out. It would make a lot of sense if the land really was railway-owned, even if it was owned purely on a speculative basis.

Agreed, however from my day job I would imagine that tracking down conveyances from the 1890s for now-demolished houses wouldn't be something to be taken on lightly!

Trying to put some chronological order to it, we get the following:

1890s: St Paul's station opened and Vickerman Street developed. The long term plan seems to have been for St Paul's to become an intermediate station joining the S&C at Keighley with the Woollen district, Sheffield and London, which never materialised.

1927: Photo from ground level shows possibly two or three screens in place but no more.

1930s: Aerial photography shows 6-8 structures in place, but not at every house.

I wonder whether perhaps Vickerman Street was developed as a source of rental income for the railway until the through line was built and the whole site was needed. By the 1920s it would have been clear that this wasn't going to happen, particularly after passenger services were withdrawn in 1917. However, if the houses were built in the 1890s, wouldn't they have already acquired the rights to light by 1931? Perhaps once the grand scheme for the through line failed, the railway cut its losses and sold the houses on.

Looking at the station plot and the alignment of the track, it's difficult to see what operational use could have been made of that part of the land, except possibly a warehouse or goods shed on a kickback siding, and there's a half length street (Aspinall Street) between Vickerman Street and the railway land which might have served for access.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
No response from the Halifax Courier. Very disappointing.
May take a while as it's part of Johnson Press and only publishes weekly?
Don't give up yet!

Following on from the post by @Ianigsy it would be very helpful to have a map that pre-dates the development of the area to show the land parcels.
The 1894 map shows Vickerman Street at the very edge of the developed area and only 11 units in the terrace backing the railway. By the 1907 map all 23 units are in place.

I have found references to Alan Dingsdale, 'Yorkshire Mill Town: A Study of the Spatial. Patterns and Processes of Urban Industrial Growth and the Evolution of the Spatial Structure of Halifax 1801-1901. (Unpublished. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leeds, 1974) but so far after spending just a little time have not been able to find it on-line.
I will look further when time permits.

Back in the day at school I simply hated History, this stuff is all new to me! :)
 
Last edited:

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
........ However, if the houses were built in the 1890s, wouldn't they have already acquired the rights to light by 1931? ........

It would be useful to have an earlier picture. The houses could have been built as 'blind-back' in the developer's hope of acquiring the neighbouring parcel of land and completing a back-to-back row. The windows we see could have been added after the initial builds.
It effectively takes 19 years and 1 day to acquire a right-to light by prescription. Within that time prescription can be frustrated by the denial of the light for a period of one year whereupon the acquisition time would start again.
On the other hand if the windows were part of the original builds then the builder may only have been able to build with an annual 'light-of-day' payment attaching to each property.
If that was the case then that would lend weight to the argument of @AndrewE that the overlooked land was owned by the railway, indeed that the land on which the houses were built may have at one time been owned by the railway.
A number of householders may have subsequently either refused to pay or at least fallen behind in their payments, leading to the observed structures.
 

JB_B

Established Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,411
It does seem that this might be the case.

Google Books offers access to a book titled "The Architect in Practice" by David Chappell and Andrew Willis. I can't copy from it, presumably for copyright reasons, but section 9.6.6 Rights of Light begins:

"Sometimes called 'ancient lights'. This ... entitles an owner to prevent his neighbour building so as to obstruct the flow of light through particular windows. The right is ... only in respect of the window openings.
....

The existence of a building with rights of light on adjoining land can put severe constraints on the development potential of a site. ... At one time, it was necessary to erect a screen to block the light to prevent the right being acquired."


The "at one time" refers to before the Rights of Light Act 1959. So such a process was known, although how legally effective the small screens visible in the photos would have been is still a moot point.



I'm pretty convinced that this is the correct answer - screens to prevent rights of light accruing under s3 Prescription Act 1832.

This wouldn't have happened post 1959 which explains why few of us can remember the phenomenon.


Similarly ( From http://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2004/06/rights-of-light-tips-for-developers?cc_lang=en )

"If time is sufficient, consideration should also be given to the use of the Light Obstruction Notice procedure. Once upon a time, people erected screens in order to prevent their neighbours acquiring rights of light.

Under the Rights of Light Act 1959, a Light Obstruction Notice may now be registered as a local land charge against neighbouring properties. This acts as a notional obstruction that is deemed to block the access of light to those properties."
 

Lucan

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2018
Messages
1,211
Location
Wales
I havn't read right through this thread but I searched for "washing" - only one occurence but that seemed to miss the target.

I'm pretty sure these were to carry the outer ends of washing lines. It was once common to hang washing out of upper windows (cannot be stolen) on lines either rigged to booms or to a tall post in the back yard. The line would be a continuous loop between pulleys and the washing would be pegged and hauled out piece by piece. Not sure why they'd needed the square boards, probably to stop the washing wrapping around the post.
 
Last edited:

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
3,725
I havn't read right through this thread but I searched for "washing" - only one occurence but that seemed to miss the target.

I'm pretty sure these were to carry the outer ends of washing lines. It was once common to hang washing out of upper windows (cannot be stolen) on lines either rigged to booms or to a tall post in the back yard. The line would be a continuous loop between pulleys and the washing would be pegged and hauled out piece by piece. Not sure why they'd needed the square boards, probably to stop the washing wrapping around the post.

I think it is the so-called "Law of Ancient Lights", given the BBC documentary referred to in post 111.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top