“Thank you for your letter of 27 January, on which we have taken our client’s instructions. We note your reference to ‘the material part of the land’. In our view, the material part, which is clearly identifiable on site, is that area lying beneath the water tower. On the original plan served with your client’s Notice, this formed the larger part of an area described as Area B. For your convenience we enclose a further copy of the plan with the land in question hatched and edged red. You will appreciate that the remaining part of Area B is enclosed and forms an extension of our client’s garden. We maintain that this small area is irrelevant in these proceedings. Area A has no significance to our client’s case, although we are instructed that in the past it has been used by our client’s neighbour, Mr Westwood. Certainly, our client is happy to acknowledge he maintains no claim to it. Area E is in fact an oil tank belonging to your client and has no bearing on this case. Area D is indeed occupied by our client but, again, this land was not material to the Notice. In the circumstances, therefore, although your client’s willingness to consent to our client’s application is appreciated, we suggest that an appropriate order would be confined to cancellation of the Notice on terms that our client concedes that he has no claim to ownership (by adverse possession or otherwise) of the material land ie the land hatched red on the plan we enclose. We look forward to hearing from you shortly in the hope that the present hearing date can be vacated on an agreed basis. Should you wish to discuss the matter, please refer to the writer.”