In 2025 David Harrison, the then lord of the manor of Barnsley auctioned his title and associated mineral rights. The lordship of the manor of Barnsley consisted of around 93ha of land within a mile of Barnsley town centre.
Recently it has become increasingly common for property developers and those advising them to have to deal with the impact of third-party mineral ownership in the land being developed.
Foundations, services or ground engineering works may physically impact on those minerals resulting in the mineral owner threatening legal action for trespass and claiming damages on a 'hypothetical negotiation' basis. This is essentially a form of ransom payment, not based on the value of the minerals.
Effect of mineral rights on development
The value of the Manor of Barnsley was apparently largely attributed to the ownership of mineral rights potentially impacting on surface development, and the sums that developers would need to pay to acquire those rights before they could lawfully sink foundations, lay services or carry out engineering operations below the surface and avoid an action for trespass.
Some of those mineral rights will be freeholds of minerals separated from the surface freehold when the land or 'manor' was created in the Middle Ages, or by inclosure acts and awards in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Other mineral rights may be residual manorial rights in formerly copyhold land, which is where title derived from the lord or lady of the manor rather than from the Crown. In copyholds, mineral rights were usually split between the lord or lady of the manor, who owned the subsurface, and the copyholder who was entitled to possession of all the land.
By a process of enfranchisement, at first voluntary and later by statute, copyholds became freeholds, and in 1926 remaining copyholds were enfranchised by statute in section 128 of the Law of Property Act 1922.
The default position after enfranchisement retained the lord or lady of the manor's ownership of the subsurface, although since October 2013 this should be noted against the surface title.
However, that default position could be changed by a deed of enfranchisement or statutory compensation agreement. In addition, statutory enfranchisement provided the freeholder with rights to disturb minerals to construct roads, drains and buildings or obtain water.
What affects ownership of mineral rights?
The substances included in any freehold minerals owned by the lord or lady of the manor will be subject to the same rules of interpretation as any mineral exception and reservation in cases such as Earl of Lonsdale v Attorney General [1982] 1 WLR 887, Wynne-Finch & Ors v Natural Resources Body for Wales [2021] EWCA Civ 1473 and Cleveland Potash Ltd v Drummond & Ors England and Wales High Court (Ch) 2024.
A number of potential factors including the relevant parties' vernacular at the time of separation of mineral ownership, the use and value of substances and working rights will all be relevant. For example, common clays have been held not to be included in mineral ownership as shown in Coleman v Ibstock Brick [2008] EWCA Civ 73, McLean Estates Ltd v Earl of Aylesford & Ors [2009] EWHC, and Wynne-Finch & Ors v Natural Resources Body for Wales [2021] EWCA Civ 1473.
The lord or lady of the manor may own mineral rights but the nature of those rights and their effect on surface development always warrants further consideration and investigation.
Richard Lashmore is a consultant at Stepien Lake
Contact Richard: Email
Related competencies include: Access and rights over land, Minerals management