News RSS Feed


Residents in fight for land

Roger Baycock, right, and Sivanesarajah Pakeerathan at the land they have fenced off Roger Baycock, right, and Sivanesarajah Pakeerathan at the land they have fenced off

residents who fenced off a grass verge have been told to get off the land by the end of the month.

The people from Marston, Oxford, want to seize ownership of the land outside the old Friar pub to safeguard one of the area’s memorial trees for future generations.

But Oxfordshire County Council came forward and declared it owned the land as it was part of the highway.

Roger Baycock, who runs Allegro Oxford saxophone shop on Marston Road, is one of the group who put up a chain-link barrier around the 15 metre long strip of land.

He said: “We want to protect this land because one of the memorial trees is on it. The council has not been removing debris from the land and I want to know why it has not been maintaining it.”

The land is home to one of the trees planted on Armistice Day, 1950, in memory of the people of Marston who died during the Second World War.

Mr Baycock and other residents had hoped to gain ownership of the triangular section of grass through a process called ‘adverse possession’.

Under the process, if land is fenced off and not claimed then, after a certain period of time, it becomes the property of the people who took control of it. But the county council has revealed the land is classified as highway and so cannot be claimed via this process.

Mr Baycock has been given until Friday, February 24, to remove the fence or the council will do it for him and charge him nearly £200 to do so.

County council spokesman Owen Morton said: “As the highways authority, we have a legal obligation to act when an illegal structure, in this case a fence, has been erected.

“We have asked the residents to remove the fence on several occasions but unfortunately they have not done so. Inevitably this has left us with no choice but to serve official notice.”

Comments(7)

Your_Kidding says...
7:47pm Wed 15 Feb 12

But Oxfordshire County Council came forward and declared it owned the land as it was part of the highway.


So which is it OCC you either own the highways or you don't. Your quick to jump up and defend a potential Tesco development but very slow to carry out any highway maintenance.

Andrew:Oxford says...
9:43pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Your_Kidding wrote:
But Oxfordshire County Council came forward and declared it owned the land as it was part of the highway.


So which is it OCC you either own the highways or you don't. Your quick to jump up and defend a potential Tesco development but very slow to carry out any highway maintenance.
Isn't that because OCC own the majority of the highways and adjoining land/pavements, but subcontract elements of the work to OCC?

The New Realist says...
10:20pm Wed 15 Feb 12

Where's Mick Haines when you need him?

caz1111 says...
11:26pm Wed 15 Feb 12

So does that mean that I can drive across this piece of grass?

Alfie Nokes says...
5:40am Thu 16 Feb 12

County council spokesman Owen Morton said: “As the highways authority,..." erm wouldn't that be Highways Agency under the Department for Transport, I guess he thinks we know what he actually meant?

King Joke says...
8:36am Thu 16 Feb 12

Alfie Nokes wrote:
County council spokesman Owen Morton said: “As the highways authority,..." erm wouldn't that be Highways Agency under the Department for Transport, I guess he thinks we know what he actually meant?
Alfie, most roads in the County are actually operated by the County. To my knowledge only the A34 and M40 are operated by the HA.

cweb says...
9:59am Thu 16 Feb 12

"Mr Baycock and other residents had hoped to gain ownership of the triangular section of grass through a process called ‘adverse possession’. "

They really need to re-read the AP rules here: You need to occupy for 10 years (registered) or 12 years (unregistered), and (here's the crucial part) use the land as if it were your own - you can't just fence it off and then claim it.

OCC are correct in their actions to protect the land they own - despite it not necessariy helping to protect those trees. If they do want to protect the trees, why not try to get a TPO on them on the basis of their history?

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree