CA 17 November 2000. A owned a detached house and garden that abutted a public highway on its western side. A entered into a dispute with the Council (B) over the actions of A's predecessor (D). C claimed D had dedicated a 30ft wide strip of land adjoining the eastern boundary of the highway for use as part of the public highway. On receiving planning permission to build the house he had been served with a notice by B requiring him, under Public Health Act 1925 s30, to set back the boundary of his land 36 feet from the western boundary of the highway. However, there was no evidence he had received or complied with the notice. The CC ruled in favour of B. A appealed. The CA held that it could not be presumed, from Public Health Act 1925 s30(4), that D had subjected his land to public rights of way simply because he was building on land adjoining a highway. It was also found that, in this instance, the hedge-to-hedge presumption could not to be supposed. Appeal allowed.