A Fair and Balanced View ?

One does sometimes wonder about how FDC goes about prioritising its efforts.

A year or two ago, a young couple bought a house in Chatteris; a pleasant house with a garage at the side. The garage was accessed by a short track across across the edge of a green. Naively, this couple assumed they would be able to keep their car in the garage.

When this track got muddy in winter, they put down some paving slabs. They also laid a narrow row of slabs at the side of the drive, so when they got out of their car, they didn’t get their feet muddy.

Sounds quite sensible so far ? Then it started to go wrong. Someone complained that what was now a neat drive, which had been a muddy track track, was on the edge of a piece of public open space. This complaint was taken up by a local town and district councillor (despite representing completely different wards) and reported to the District Council.

Fenland District Council started by insisting that the couple should remove the slabs. The couple inquired how they were to use their garage. The District Council conceded that they could perhaps cross the grass, as long as they didn’t get out of the car and walk on the grass! (thereby in effect denying them the rights enjoyed by any other member of the public!).

It then came to light that Fenland District Council didn’t actually own the grass public open space. Things went quiete for a bit, while the District Council registered ownership of the space, including the established drive and path to the couple's house.

Now the registration is complete, the District Council are adamant that their legal department are actively taking action to force the couple to remove certainly the path, and probably the drive. (Although as there has been long established use of this access, their continued right to use it almost certainly exists anyway)

Those of you who are happy that our money is being wasted in this near persecution of a young couple who simply want to use their garage without getting muddy feet, may care to compare and contrast this case to another land ownership dispute currently languishing at Fenland Hall:-

In December 2006 residents of Cavalry Drive and Breton Avenue, March were horrified to learn that a planning application had been submitted to build two houses on the nearby substantial grass play area.

Investigations revealed that F.D.C. had neglected to register their ownership of this and other pieces of public open space in March. A local company which had formerly owned the land (about 30 years earlier when it was developed for housing) had seemingly realised that two green open spaces were unregistered at Peterborough Land Registry and in 2005 applied for, and was granted, registration of ownership.

FDC had found a deed of gift for one of the pieces of land and sent it to Peterborough Land Registry in October 2005. Land Registry replied that FDC should apply for ‘rectification of tittle’. And then FDC did .... nothing.

When this whole matter came into the public domain in earlier this year, FDC explained that they wouldn’t apply for rectification themselves, but would leave it up to the business’s solicitor to put the matter right. At the time of writing, we believe that the first step towards rectification still hasn’t been taken.

Wouldn't you think FDC should be intent on sorting out the ownership of extensive pieces of public land in March?

Wouldn't it be better for attention to be devoted to this serious matter than to have FDC zealously pursuing a young couple who have really harmed no-one by tidying up a small strip of land to facilitate access to their garage ?

Walt.