000			01631cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS64598
008			010924n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u114794
245			_aHale v Norfolk County Council
260			_c2001
490			_aProperty, Planning and Compensation Reports _v[2001] 82 P&CR, 341-355(15)
520			_aCA 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.
590			_aABS
650			_aPUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1925 S30
650			_aHALE V NORFOLK CC
650			_aPUBLIC HIGHWAYS
650			_aDEDICATION
650			_aHEDGE-TO-HEDGE PRESUMPTION
650			_aBoundary disputes _96221
690			_aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c68340 _d68340