Al1son

Apologies, I was unclear the title plan doesn't make any reference to the land as being amenity land. It's definitely a public footpath I'm waiting on official confirmation that it's only for foot pedestrian use only Only other point of contention is how I convince them that it is not amenity land and how do I get them to allow me to erect a 2m fence given that they've said the area needs to kept open

The title plan shows the so called amenity land that the council are referring to as being in our ownership as indicated in red, it's the same as the location plan I attached to an earlier post. I will make enquiries to find the plan that they are referring to that is marked in pink

@Temp PD rights have been partially removed, details on page 3 of the thread but a fence can be erected It's a public footpath, the law states only pedestrians are only allowed to use on foot only For a certificate of lawfulness they are already arguing it's not in keeping with the openess of the area. And the land is classed as amenity land!

If I've understood correctly don't think that work as it will restrict access to the land as it is quite narrow

Got you, that is an option I could propose as a last resort, so first few metres along the footpath erect 1m and lay down shrubs behind them which will eventually get to the height of 2m and the rest of the length erect a 2m fence

@ProDave the 2m fence will be set back over 6m from the front of the road.

Attached is the proposal

@DevilDamo the law states public footpaths are for pedestrians only on foot, therefore how could the footpath be deemed to be “adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic”?

@DevilDamo yep that's the one that the case officer sent me in the email. But as pointed out my footpath is not a redway Although that appeal was dismissed, a full planning application was submitted which was approved, can be found here Links below https://publicaccess2.milton-keynes.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=O66YW4KWN5700&activeTab=summary https://publicaccess2.milton-keynes.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OLEYOIKWG0F00&activeTab=summary

@DevilDamo But it makes no reference to 'vehicular traffic'!? I've been looking at the legislation website https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/2/crossheading/class-a-gates-fences-walls-etc/made Also I submitted an enquiry to the council to determine if PD rights were in intact, this is the response I received Permitted Development rights have partly been removed This planning reference relates to the site address provided. The decision notice states “ That no development, including any development permitted by the Town and Country Planning ( General Development) Order 1963 (other than the erection of a fence or footpath) shall be carried out It also states To ensure the land coloured in pink on the enclosed plan remains available for use for public open space purposes in accordance with its allocation and designated for such use on the first quinquennial review of the development plan, submitted to the ministry of housing and local government The above was mentioned in the development application for the area. There is no plan in the doc highlighting the pink area they refer to

@DevilDamo The GDPO states the height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed— (i) for a school, 2 metres above ground level, provided that any part of the gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure which is more than 1 metre above ground level does not create an obstruction to the view of persons using the highway as to be likely to cause danger to such persons; (ii) in any other case, 1 metre above ground level; In my case it's a public footpath not used by vehicular traffic the council have cited the Milton Keynes example stating bicycle are classed as vehicular traffic that applies to redways. As far as I know our footpath is not a redway The property I believe was built in the 70's

Will respond back to the case officer, hopefully he accepts my findings! Will keep you updated, thanks!

Agree, checked title deeds nothing mentioned regarding amenity land or covenants

That's exactly what I was planning to do, but not sure how I can get around and argue the amenity land and not in keeping with the openesss of the area point the council are making

@DevilDamo I'm asking whether the case officer has made the right judgement and whether I should dispute/appeal the decision. I have not received an official decision the case officer has been communicating with me via email explaining the reasons and that I should accept a 1m fence. If I read correctly they have also indicated a change of use application will also be refused. The council cited the Milton Keynes redways example but as pointed out earlier cycles are not classed as vehicular traffic and not permitted on footpaths so in light of this my thinking is that they have made the wrong decision? Road Traffic Act 1988 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/interpretation “cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle, “footpath”, in relation to England and Wales, means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only, So by calling it a Footpath excludes use by cycles, and even allowing cycles does not make it a vehicular highway as a cycle is not a vehicle. I have checked the title deeds there is no mention that the strip of land is amenity land The application was for proposed use not change of use we are merely requesting to erect a 2m fence to enclose the boundary curtilage of our land which will provide security, privacy and prevent littering and dog fouling. The strip of land is overgrown waste land

This is the problem I'm finding, there procedures in terms of how they asses applications is non existent I couldn't find anything on the council website. Whatever I've found and quoted in earlier posts is from other online sources At the minute I'm communicating with the case officer via email who is trying to convince me to accept their offer of a 1m fence. Do I request an appeal now? or do I continue to communicate with the case officer? and make the point that cycles cannot be used on footpaths and refer them to the legislation?

That's useful, thanks! The council have used the Milton Keynes example for my case stating that the redways in MK can be used by cyclists. I'm pretty sure In my case the footpath is not a redway, for argument sake if the council concede and accept the footpath is not to be used by cyclists, could they argue the other points they have raised i.e it is not in keeping with the openeess of the area, open character of the footpath, using the neighbours example of erecting a 1m fence, it's amenity land etc

Did you appeal yourself or get a planner/solicitor involved? Could you kindly share a copy of your appeal? That I could perhaps utilise and amend accordingly?

What I found strange was that they class cyclist's as vehicular traffic!? How could I establish whether cycle's are permitted to use the footpath? The strip of land we own, at the minute, it's wasteland, we want to erect a 2m fence so we can enclose it which will prevent littering, dog fouling and provide security and privacy. The application we submitted was for proposed use The council are claiming it's an adopted road and it's landscaped amenity land even though we maintain that land ourselves! I was under the impression that for applications for lawful development that they only check whether it meets the criteria of the law you are specifying from the GDPO. I found the below on another councils website Applications for Lawful Development Certificates are not planning applications - they allow the Council to consider whether planning permission is or is not required for a proposal . As such, the planning merits raised by these applications cannot be taken into account by the Local Planning Authority at any stage in the assessment of such an application; it is simply a technical assessment made using evidence, fact, and consideration of the permitted development rights. The Local Planning Authority has no discretion in this and can only consider whether, on the facts of the case and relevant planning law, the specific matter is or would be lawful. If the local planning authority is satisfied with information satisfying them of the lawfulness at the time of the application, it must grant a lawful development certificate to that effect. I also read elsewhere.. Neighbours can object at this stage; however, only objections as to whether the development is lawful or not (i.e. whether the work is covered by permitted development or not) will be taken into consideration. Any objections about privacy/loss of natural light/disturbance etc will be disregarded. It appears my council are using other reasons to reject such as not in keeping with the openeess of the area, open character of the footpath, using the neighbours example of erecting a 1m fence so I must do the same! etc - are they allowed to do this?

Hi @DevilDamo We decided to submit an application for a lawful development certificate proposed use to erect a 2m fence along the boundary line of our property. I'm disappointed to say the least but the council are stating I can only erect a 1m fence on my land which I own Is it worth pursuing this further to challenge their decision and appeal? or do I concede and accept? I would appreciate your advice Council response below:.... unfortunately I do not believe your proposal would accord with the relevant class under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). Part 2 Class A of the GPDO permits the erection of fences, subject to accordance with guidelines outlined in paragraph A.1. Part a states: the height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed— (i) for a school, 2 metres above ground level, provided that any part of the gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure which is more than 1 metre above ground level does not create an obstruction to the view of persons using the highway as to be likely to cause danger to such persons; (ii) in any other case, 1 metre above ground level; From assessment of your proposal, the footpath which runs between no.51 and no.53 is an adopted highway and therefore the height of your fence should not exceed 1 metre. Footpaths are still classified as highways. Furthermore, it is important to recognise the use of the land as landscaped amenity land which is important in retaining the open character of this footpath. On this basis, the erection of any fence in this location should ensure that the use of this land is amenity land and not private garden, otherwise a change of use application would be required. This would also be unlikely to be supported due to the importance of this land in the character of the streetscene. In short, we could accept a fence similar to that at no.51, as this would be lawful under this application. However, enclosure of this land should not result in a change of use of the land. I would therefore recommend that you amend your proposal if you wish to proceed with it to accord with the GPDO. If you have any questions about the information above please do let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I responded back stating that the GDPO, there is no reference to an "adopted highway" instead it refers to "a highway used by vehicular traffic". Also, the land is not amenity land, it is part of my private garden, and provided title plan, the council responded as below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A highway used by vehicular traffic does not limit itself to motorised vehicles, nor should it be open to all forms of vehicles. As this footpath is open to pedestrians and cyclists it would still fall within the definition of ‘A highway used by vehicular traffic’. The proposal therefore does not accord with Paragraph A.1. I have attached an appeal decision which outlined this matter in further detail. With regards to the issue of private garden, whilst I do accept it is within your title deeds in planning terms it is still landscaped amenity space which contributes to the open character of the footpath. It is not private garden space. With this in mind, any fence erected, should still maintain the open character of the area, a 1m fence would do this as I suggested in my previous email. The fence at no.51 was considered to be acceptable as it restricted access to their land without reducing the open nature of this path. This is something which would be permitted along the border of your land, however, a 2m fence would impact upon this openness. Therefore, as I stated in my previous email, I suggest you revise your proposal to accord with the relevant class under the GPDO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the second response the council cited this previous application in Milton Keynes for rejecting the application which refers to redways and also the MK example the fence would be setback 0.6m from the highway whereas our proposed 2m fence will be setback over 6m from the road! Also to note I found out that although the MK case was refused the owners submitted a full planning application which was approved! Links below https://publicaccess2.milton-keynes.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=O66YW4KWN5700&activeTab=summary https://publicaccess2.milton-keynes.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=OLEYOIKWG0F00&activeTab=summary

Update... provided evidence council have accepted that it is now immune from any enforcement action!. They've suggested i apply for a certificate of lawful development. I have no plans to sell the house but thinking it maybe worthwhile getting the cert. Does anyone know what's involved/the process to get the cert? What info does the council require?

@Adsibob the letter makes no mention about a fire hazard or the use of flammable materials, they've only stated that no planning application has been submitted and that it needs to be taken down. I'll provide the invoice for the roof via email, hopefully this is sufficient enough.

@Temp thanks, will have a look @Adsibob good point, will respond back tomorrow Just to be clear when the outbuilding was put in place we spoke to the neighbour who had no objections. The house sold a few years ago, we met the new owners (landlord) who did not raise any issues with us at all at the time. Looks like now they've changed their mind!

@Temp i cant view old satellite images on google, i can only see the current satellite version or old street view versions Is there an alternative site you know of? Also shall i provide all the evidence in one go? Or should i ask what evidence they would accept? I was going to state the following in my email... 'I have sought advice, the outbuilding has been there in excess of 5 years I am therefore led to believe that enforcement will not apply Please could let me know what evidence you would require' Thoughts would be appreciated

Great, thanks, will drop an email to the council to make further enquiries in the meantime will speak to the neighbours and a couple of friends who can vouch for me that its been up since 2015 and provide a copy of the roof invoice