Dispute Erupts Over Ownership of Dwarf Wall Between Developer and Local Businessman

A disagreement has emerged involving Lioncourt Homes, the developers of a new housing estate, and Roger White, a local businessman, about a low wall that is only two bricks high. The developers assert that the wall must be taken down to create an emergency access route as mandated by planning authorities. Conversely, Mr. White claims that this wall, situated next to a 70-home development in Hempsted, Gloucester, belongs to him, having inherited the land from his father in 1997, which he valued at £10,000 back in 2017.

Mr. White expresses feelings of intimidation from the developers, who he alleges did not reach out to him about purchasing the wall prior to commencing construction. In a cease-and-desist letter addressed to Mr. White, Lioncourt stated that he is not entitled to demand compensation over the wall. At 58 years old and employed in the IT sector, Mr. White recalls his father's advice to keep an eye on the property, which he had previously monitored without noticing any changes over the years. However, he discovered recent construction activity, including a concrete fence being erected, prompting him to investigate further.

Upon examining the planning permissions, Mr. White noted that the developers required the emergency access to be placed on his land, thereby impacting the wall. After contacting Lioncourt Homes about his claim of ownership, they acknowledged in writing that the wall is indeed his, yet they contend that it either qualifies as an adopted public highway or they lay claim to it as their property. Although Lioncourt has documents from 1964 asserting ownership of the wall, Mr. White has obtained evidence from 1971 indicating his rightful ownership.

In light of the cease-and-desist letter, Mr. White's legal team has stated it is up to the developers to demonstrate that the wall is within their property lines and if it serves as part of the public road. Mr. White insists that the wall is officially registered in his name and questions how the situation could escalate to the current state with the construction of 70 homes without any prior investigation into property boundaries. He remains open to the development but stresses the need for the process to be handled appropriately, believing that the developers are more inclined to proceed forcefully than to engage with him respectfully. He adds that it feels increasingly like a case of a large developer overpowering a small businessman.