This
supplement, the fourth for this edition, is intended as a means
of updating readers of the main text with a summary of relevant
legislative change and recent developments in case law, some of which
the authors may incorporate in the fifth edition of Neighbours and the
Law. Paragraphs updated since the last supplement are numbered in red. Adverse
possession rules OK. Consideration of the justification under
human rights law for the complete deprivation of property rights
without any compensation has finally ended with the judgment by the
Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and JA Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v United Kingdom,
published on 30th August 2007, that there had been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol 1. Please see the General Note at the end
of Chapter 1. Other developments since publication of the last
supplement include guidance from both House of Lords and Court of
Appeal on waste treatment, and on the constraints upon the private
right to litigate where controls upon the activities of a sewerage
undertaker are vested in the water services regulator, Ofwat. The
Court of Appeal has again reminded property owners of limitations in
the accuracy of Ordnance Survey plans when they attempt precisely to
define their boundaries, and the House of Lords has confirmed that
owners wishing to resist claims that the public have acquired a right
of way across their property must show that the permissive nature of
any such use was for at least some part of the relevant period brought
clearly to the attention of likely users. The Court of
Appeal’s recent decision in Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli
provides an excuse to include reference in this supplement to the
court’s powers under the Housing Act 1985, s.610 to permit the
conversion of houses into flats despite restrictive covenants to the
contrary.
While I strive to keep
abreast of
relevant developments in the law the breadth of subject-matter covered
by the book is such that errors and omissions are inevitable,
for
which I take full responsibility. Devolution, with its
resulting
different commencement dates and Orders, has made the task
even
more complicated. May I therefore apologise to Welsh readers if I have
failed accurately to record the current status of legislation affecting
the principality.
Comments and corrections
by readers (by e-mail, post or DX to my chambers) are
appreciated.
Graham Sinclair
East Anglian Chambers
Norwich
12th November 2007
