Unmanaged adjacent land causing problems

Davesnave

courtmc said:

Thanks for the excellent comments on this. Regarding adverse possession, I think this is a non-starter, at least for me. Maintaining the land to claim the land in 7 years is one thing. But what is really required, are the trees and JK to be dealt with. Aside from the cost, these are two issues I don't believe I can deal with effectively on land which is not mine and without significant cost.

As the land is registered, nowadays you would need the permission of Persimmon to claim it through adverse possession, who'd be informed of any claim made. They probably wouldn't grant it.

Section62

courtmc said:

As for the land itself, it's between hour back garden and a footpath leading to the park. There is a natural boundary before the land rises to meet the path which is the boundary shown on the land registry maps.

As an example, the council could have required that strip of land be kept clear so an existing footpath could (in future) be upgraded to a cycleway or bridleway, or just that they thought a footpath on a nice wide strip of land would be more pleasant to use than one hard up against people's back garden fences like an urban alleyway.

The thing is there will be some point to it (likely explained in the planning files), it won't be there by accident.

courtmc said:

It's too small to build a property on or for any other development. 

Yes, what I meant was at the time the development was planned the whole layout could have been done differently (=more houses). It wouldn't be additional houses on the strips of land, but instead shuffling everything around to make more space elsewhere within the development to squeeze more houses in.

The fact these strips have been effectively sterilised for development purposes, and don't have any obvious value as ransom strips, would further support the idea they have some particular purpose.