Family in David and Goliath battle with Government over Basildon land

Echo: Battle: Pauline Missing Battle: Pauline Missing

A FAMILY is locked in a David and Goliath battle with a Government agency over land it needs to develop a massive business park.

The Homes and Communities Agency has taken civil action to evict the Missing family from two plots of meadowland surrounding their home, in Gardiners Way, Basildon.

The couple argue the land is theirs because they have used it for more than ten years.

However, the agency, and a series of other organisations, have been trying to develop a major business park and homes complex across the whole Gardiners Lane South area for the past 25 years.

The plots in question and the family’s home fall within the boundary of the proposed development site.

At Southend County Court, Michael and Pauline Missing said they had used the fields for various activities, including as a play area for their three children since the 1980s and banning them from the land would breach human rights. Speaking on behalf of her parents, Jolene Missing, said: “My parents have believed the land was ours since 1987. We had tree houses on there and have always done fruit picking, of plums and pears there. We grazed ponies on there and my brother used it for martial arts training.”

She added the family had maintained the land, strimming the area and cutting back hedges, and using it to gather wood.

The family said when they purchased their neighbouring home called Mount Lodge, the solicitor had explained they had ended up with more land than expected.

The Missings hope to use a legal loophole, allowing someone who has had possession of a third party’s land for more than ten years uninterrupted, to legally take ownership.

Echo:

Stephanie Tozer, representing the agency, disputed the Missings genuinely believed they had ever owned the land, and had merely taken advantage of it.

She said in 1995 they even made a written approach to a predecessor about buying it.

She said: “I cannot think by letting children play there or grazing ponies was seeking possession of the land. It amounts to minor trespasses.

There has been no real attempt to oust the true owner.

“There has been no attempt to fence off the land and no buildings have been erected, with any development, including a dojo for martial arts training, built within the 70- feet frontage of Mount Lodge.

The activities on the land, if at all, go no way to a claim for adverse possession.”

She said in 2008 the Commission for New Towns had registered the land in its name and from this point the family could have not reasonably believed it was theirs.

She also said the other two empty plots known as Rose Lodge and Lawn Lodge effectively tripled the size of the property and could not have been purchased unbeknown to them.

Mrs Tozer said a series of checks on the land by surveyors and agency staff on the land over the past decade had shown no evidence of the family using or attempting to take over the land.

Judge Patrick Moloney QC asked for details on why it would breach their human rights to lose access to the land and they said this would be provided should the decision go against them.

Judge Moloney reserved judgement in the case to a later date.

Echo:

Keep out: HCA sign off Gardiners Way

Ill-fated plans for a major business park off Gardiners Lane South have caused bad blood between the Homes and Communities Agency and the Missings since 1991.

That was when predecessor the Commission for New Towns first announced plans for a business park, which never got off the ground.

A series of variations of the scheme have failed to get going due to funding problems, with a major new junction needed off the A127.

Essex County Council is still trying to get the millions needed to build this and get it back on track.

In the meantime the Missings claim to have lived under a planning blight – unable to sell or develop their home bought in 1987 due to the threat.

The Homes and Communities Agency has bought out a number the Missing’s neighbours, but the family has refused to budge, despite the threat of the use of compulsory purchase orders, which have yet to be used.

Pauline Missing told the court: “We have not been able to do anything with our home because of this threat of development which has hung over us for 25 years.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:08am Wed 16 Jul 14

Robin Reliant says...

so it was not theirs originally, but they are claiming it because they used it for so long, surely they always knew that one day this would surface, thats what happens when you take something that was not yours.
so it was not theirs originally, but they are claiming it because they used it for so long, surely they always knew that one day this would surface, thats what happens when you take something that was not yours. Robin Reliant
  • Score: 16

11:12am Wed 16 Jul 14

Howard Cháse says...

They want a business park there now do they?


Last time we heard about it it was earmarked for a permanent site for Travellers.
They want a business park there now do they? Last time we heard about it it was earmarked for a permanent site for Travellers. Howard Cháse
  • Score: 5

12:56pm Wed 16 Jul 14

pembury53 says...

to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....
to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours.... pembury53
  • Score: -2

3:23pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Sensible Man says...

Clearly, this stupid plan for an industrial / business centre MUST be rejected. If this concrete, environment destroying piece of garbage is ever (god forbid) built - I imagine that a few years hence much of the proposed filthy concrete wasteland will lie empty and derelict. NOT NEEDED HERE!!!! KEEP THIS LAND GREEN!!!!!
Clearly, this stupid plan for an industrial / business centre MUST be rejected. If this concrete, environment destroying piece of garbage is ever (god forbid) built - I imagine that a few years hence much of the proposed filthy concrete wasteland will lie empty and derelict. NOT NEEDED HERE!!!! KEEP THIS LAND GREEN!!!!! Sensible Man
  • Score: 2

4:53pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Audioman says...

Clear them off the land it is thiersit belongs to the Queen as ALL LAND does.
Clear them off the land it is thiersit belongs to the Queen as ALL LAND does. Audioman
  • Score: -2

5:10pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jolllyboy says...

keep going girl...............
keep going girl............... jolllyboy
  • Score: 12

5:35pm Wed 16 Jul 14

ChampKind says...

Seems like a fair argument to me. I've been using the A13 for more than ten years now so I'm going to claim it as mine.
Seems like a fair argument to me. I've been using the A13 for more than ten years now so I'm going to claim it as mine. ChampKind
  • Score: -2

10:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Kim Gandy says...

Commission for New Towns and Homes and Communities Agency.. both unelected quangoes set up by lefties (most likely the Labour variety) staffed by people on fat salaries so they need NOT poke their noses in. Another waste of space.

And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that...

Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it - and have recently commandeered someone else's land in Oak Lane. Something that is well documented in numerous TV programmes and newspapers.

I don't see this family trespassing on anybody else's land or causing a problem for anyone else, or living off the taxpayer whilst disrespecting the community around them and thinking the world owes them a living.

Let them get on with it as far as I'm concerned.
Commission for New Towns and Homes and Communities Agency.. both unelected quangoes set up by lefties (most likely the Labour variety) staffed by people on fat salaries so they need NOT poke their noses in. Another waste of space. And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that... Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it - and have recently commandeered someone else's land in Oak Lane. Something that is well documented in numerous TV programmes and newspapers. I don't see this family trespassing on anybody else's land or causing a problem for anyone else, or living off the taxpayer whilst disrespecting the community around them and thinking the world owes them a living. Let them get on with it as far as I'm concerned. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -2

12:34am Thu 17 Jul 14

ThisYear says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Commission for New Towns and Homes and Communities Agency.. both unelected quangoes set up by lefties (most likely the Labour variety) staffed by people on fat salaries so they need NOT poke their noses in. Another waste of space.

And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that...

Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it - and have recently commandeered someone else's land in Oak Lane. Something that is well documented in numerous TV programmes and newspapers.

I don't see this family trespassing on anybody else's land or causing a problem for anyone else, or living off the taxpayer whilst disrespecting the community around them and thinking the world owes them a living.

Let them get on with it as far as I'm concerned.
"And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that..."

Demented hag...the people of DF were evicted from their land!

Are you supporting this family being evicted from their while supporting them not being evicted?

Your dribbling ramblings would seem to suggest that..Idiot.

And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that...

Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it -


"Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it -"


Err...Yes, they did own the land...the land they were evicted off they owned...the other side of DF is also owned by Travellers from both communities...some who live on the land and some who rent their bit to other Travellers...

So just what is it you are claiming? Do you know?
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: Commission for New Towns and Homes and Communities Agency.. both unelected quangoes set up by lefties (most likely the Labour variety) staffed by people on fat salaries so they need NOT poke their noses in. Another waste of space. And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that... Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it - and have recently commandeered someone else's land in Oak Lane. Something that is well documented in numerous TV programmes and newspapers. I don't see this family trespassing on anybody else's land or causing a problem for anyone else, or living off the taxpayer whilst disrespecting the community around them and thinking the world owes them a living. Let them get on with it as far as I'm concerned.[/p][/quote]"And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that..." Demented hag...the people of DF were evicted from their land! Are you supporting this family being evicted from their while supporting them not being evicted? Your dribbling ramblings would seem to suggest that..Idiot. And if that lot at Dale Farm can do it, why not this family? What's sauce for the goose and all that... Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it - "Oh and don't tell me they OWNED the land at Dale Farm; they only owned part of it -" Err...Yes, they did own the land...the land they were evicted off they owned...the other side of DF is also owned by Travellers from both communities...some who live on the land and some who rent their bit to other Travellers... So just what is it you are claiming? Do you know? ThisYear
  • Score: 1

12:36am Thu 17 Jul 14

ThisYear says...

pembury53 wrote:
to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....
You mean like the Travellers of Dale farm...Im sure you were supporting them in their fight to remain on their own land.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....[/p][/quote]You mean like the Travellers of Dale farm...Im sure you were supporting them in their fight to remain on their own land. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

12:38am Thu 17 Jul 14

ThisYear says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
They want a business park there now do they?


Last time we heard about it it was earmarked for a permanent site for Travellers.
The "Ball's" up of the council was DF was to be used as the waste plant..until the uppity Travellers decide for once to resist the council..gawd-darn those pesky Travellers...many a brown envelope was not earned when they did this..
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: They want a business park there now do they? Last time we heard about it it was earmarked for a permanent site for Travellers.[/p][/quote]The "Ball's" up of the council was DF was to be used as the waste plant..until the uppity Travellers decide for once to resist the council..gawd-darn those pesky Travellers...many a brown envelope was not earned when they did this.. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

12:38am Thu 17 Jul 14

ThisYear says...

Robin Reliant wrote:
so it was not theirs originally, but they are claiming it because they used it for so long, surely they always knew that one day this would surface, thats what happens when you take something that was not yours.
There are precedents..
[quote][p][bold]Robin Reliant[/bold] wrote: so it was not theirs originally, but they are claiming it because they used it for so long, surely they always knew that one day this would surface, thats what happens when you take something that was not yours.[/p][/quote]There are precedents.. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Thu 17 Jul 14

pembury53 says...

ThisYear wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....
You mean like the Travellers of Dale farm...Im sure you were supporting them in their fight to remain on their own land.
now, as it so happens, unlike many, I took no particular pleasure in that eviction, although I would have to stop short at saying I supported them, being as I was, uninformed of the legalities of it all.......however, given my rage at the disgraceful planning approvals that are witnessed routinely in southend, I would not be such a hypocrite as to automatically side with the council (albeit not SBC) over dale farm, or any other similar decision.........
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....[/p][/quote]You mean like the Travellers of Dale farm...Im sure you were supporting them in their fight to remain on their own land.[/p][/quote]now, as it so happens, unlike many, I took no particular pleasure in that eviction, although I would have to stop short at saying I supported them, being as I was, uninformed of the legalities of it all.......however, given my rage at the disgraceful planning approvals that are witnessed routinely in southend, I would not be such a hypocrite as to automatically side with the council (albeit not SBC) over dale farm, or any other similar decision......... pembury53
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Thu 17 Jul 14

LinfordsLunchbox says...

pembury53 wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....
You mean like the Travellers of Dale farm...Im sure you were supporting them in their fight to remain on their own land.
now, as it so happens, unlike many, I took no particular pleasure in that eviction, although I would have to stop short at saying I supported them, being as I was, uninformed of the legalities of it all.......however, given my rage at the disgraceful planning approvals that are witnessed routinely in southend, I would not be such a hypocrite as to automatically side with the council (albeit not SBC) over dale farm, or any other similar decision.........
"now, as it so happens, unlike
many, I took no particular
pleasure in that eviction" oh i did mate, i cracked open a beer & a packet of prawn crackers and had a right old chuckle as i watched that bunch of toerags get their marching orders
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: to be fair, it must stick in the gut, knowing your about to be turfed off land that is legally yours....[/p][/quote]You mean like the Travellers of Dale farm...Im sure you were supporting them in their fight to remain on their own land.[/p][/quote]now, as it so happens, unlike many, I took no particular pleasure in that eviction, although I would have to stop short at saying I supported them, being as I was, uninformed of the legalities of it all.......however, given my rage at the disgraceful planning approvals that are witnessed routinely in southend, I would not be such a hypocrite as to automatically side with the council (albeit not SBC) over dale farm, or any other similar decision.........[/p][/quote]"now, as it so happens, unlike many, I took no particular pleasure in that eviction" oh i did mate, i cracked open a beer & a packet of prawn crackers and had a right old chuckle as i watched that bunch of toerags get their marching orders LinfordsLunchbox
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree