Adverse possession

[Mudlark]

Thank you Des8.
It's outrageous I think that PINS did not allow us to appeal the EN
The EN mentions the material charge of use of the land (by fencing and other means of enclosure along with election of out buildings resulting in material harm to the character of the riverside as it does not enhance the landscape or waterside or make a positive contribution to the waterside environment.

We have no buildings or fences and other means of enclosure (other than a net acting as a gate)

We are moored to the land we are in adverse possession of, there are no structures buildings or anything else on the land.

The EN site marked on red extends far beyond my land well into my neighbours lands on either side of me ( they have not been informed of this)

Best regards
Mudlark

[des8]

So the EN is because your enclosing the land by means of a net is considered a material change to the riverside character.

As a matter of interest, how high is this net?
I wonder if just a low single strand wire barrier, or failing that some prickly bushes, on the boundary will suffice for you and keep the council off your case.

I can see that even if you are registered as proprietor after your adverse possession claim, you will not actually obtain PP to fence it off or erect any buildings and basically the land will remain open to the public.

[Mudlark]

Thank you Des8.
The land was never open to the public, I opened the access from the road to the mooring land.
The land was completely overgrown with brambles and scrub.
the net is about 4ft high but I can reduce it to 3ft.
It prevents the dogs from disturbing the geese, ducks and coots etc that are constantly on out land which we feed daily.
it also keeps the public out.
Surely the lpa have not got the right to make me take down the net so the public cab access the my private land
I'm now going to move my boat off the mooring for one or two days each month so that the net isnt not fir the permanent mooring of a boat.
This, I think , will comply with the EN.
Do you think this is so?
If nothing is there for the permanent mooring of a boat surely I have complied with the EN.
I will stay on the land in a fishing bivvy when the boat is off the mooring.
Your openion is very much sought on the practicality of this strategy.
Thak you again Des8
Warm regards
Mudlark

[Ukmicky]

So have you asked the council which regulations you have breached causing them to issue an EN?

Are neighbouring plots fenced?

Are the council attempting to force you to allow the public onto the land?
An order to remove fencing isn't forcing you to allow anyone access, altho' removing fencing might enable others easily to access the land .

Worth noting that whilst fencing is strong evidence of factual possession, it is neither indispensable nor conclusive for a claim of adverse possession

Land can be fenced . It’s a basic right which allows someone to protect and define the boundaries of their property .

[des8]

Problem is that the enclosure of the land, which presumably forms part of the surrounding landscapie open space, has, according to the council resulted in a material change of use requiring permission, As PP has not been applied for, nor granted, the council are taking enforcement action.

If OP was to appeal the EN the council would then need to establish what essential change in the character of the use had occurred

[Mudlark]

I have applied for retrospective planning permission but only because I was refused the right of appeal to the EN .
of course the planning was refused as they want us out of here .
The land was never open space, it was overgrown in brambles etc to a height of about 3metres .
The hedge border has been there fir many decades.

[des8]

have you appealed the planning decision?

[Mudlark]

I will not keep my boat here permanently, I intend to take it off the mooring for1 or 2 days per month.
that way I'm not permanently moored, I hope the lpa will treat me as a leisure mooring on my land.

[Ukmicky]

There needs to be more because putting a fence up does not on its own create a change of use,


Councils hate the fact but fencing open amenity land dosent create a change of use of the land and is permitted Development ,

They often win however because often someone puts a fence up and at the same time starts using the land for a purpose that requires a change of use application , for example a garden. The council can deem the unauthorised use of the land and the erection of the fence as one development and therefore can order the removal of the fence along side the unauthorised use.

Provided the fence being erected and the unauthorised use are separated by time the council can’t claim both are one development.

[des8]

Agree that councils often regard enclosure of land, which may once have formed part of the surrounding landscape is likely to have resulted in a material change of use requiring permission.

Op's problem is how to stop enforcement action (which will be at his cost if he does not comply).

My suggestion is appeal either against refusal of planning permission

[Ukmicky]

So the issue is not the fence ,it’s the use of the land within the fence. . if the Op is refused planning permission to use the land for any purpose that allows the mooring of a boat as part of the enforcement action they can require the boat to be removed permanently,

The OP also is calling this land his land but it’s not his land ,not yet. He has a legal interest in the land if his current occupation and use of the land qualifies towards a future adverse possession claim but currently it’s not his land.

If the OP is refused planning permission to change the use of the land any future application to gain the land through adverse possession will probably fail because you need to do more than simply walk on land to adverse possession it. So he needs to gain planning permission to help his adverse possession claim.


The problem he has got is changing the use of land is something the council do not have to approve and if the council refuse to grant a change of use the chances of winning an appeal against enforcement is slim especially if the land has local amenity value and the argument that it was full of brambles so was not open space is not an argument that would win because it’s the amenity value to the local area that protected. Open space is open space even with natural plant life growing on it.

Sorry to say it but the OP is in a bad place and I can’t see him winning this one,