albion2021

In my case, none of the comments received were uploaded to the website until the day before the determination deadline.

Thank you! I am trying to be objective but I feel this is really unreasonable. In the decision notice it states the removal of the fencing rights is to protect the appearance of the countryside, The fencing is 1.2m high and screened from public view by the 15m tall boundary hedges. This is what the planning officer has written in the report regarding the access and fencing: Details of the proposed access will be for a RM. However, following the recently refused application the red line has been adjusted to allow for an alternative siting of the access close to the southern boundary of the field where it can also utilise the existing field access. The siting will benefit from the existing hedgerow screening whilst also minimising the impact of a double row of post and rail ranch type fencing. However, as at the farm opposite (the mixed use arable farm and industrial estate with the prison like gate), it would be preferable to limit fencing altogether, and allow horses (aka 1/2 ton flight animals) to freely graze both sides of the access without impediment (from escaping onto the 60mph road every time the gate is opened), thus further minimising the visual impact of the access on the landscape. Subject to the above being agreed as part of the RM, and to details of the gated entrance treatment being sympathetic, the siting of the access is considered acceptable and would be considered to minimise its impact on the countryside in accordance with Policies CS1, CS7 and CS12, and Para 170 of the NPPF which states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. He has also stated that he would like me to reduce the size of the garden in the RM, but being an outline application the fee was paid based on the sq m of redline area which with the track amounted to nearly £3000, surely they can’t accept the fee and then insist I reduce the area? I think this is going to be an uphill battle ?

Little update… The planning consultant never got back to me so I muddled on, taking on board all your advice and suggestions I resubmitted the application using the existing gateway but reserved all matters to overcome the objections to the appearance and omitted the fencing. Permission has been granted ? but the planning officer has imposed a condition removing various permitted development rights, including Part 2 class A - fencing and gates ? Does this condition only apply to the red line area of my application and not to the rest of the land? In which case I could still fence the track because the fence would be beyond the 3.7m wide red line area allocated to the track I am considering appealing the earlier decision regarding the siting

There is an existing entrance but not an existing access track. It was only the LPA objecting to the new positioning. General opinion here seems to be that the LPA will issue another refusal unless I agree to use the existing entrance but as it reduces the visibility, I fear highways could then object instead. That went over my head, I thought providing examples of others they had recently approved and the requirement to be consistent in decisions was enough. Planning consultant said he would take a look over the weekend but really appreciate all the advice & opinions in the meantime.

Yes, the blue is going from the existing gate, so roughly the route they are suggesting.

Is the improved visibility and nearby approved track through the middle of a field count as valid reasons?

I don't feel they offered a compromise, the comment I received was "I consider the position of the access across the field does not minimise its impact on the countryside and would be contrary to Policy CS7 as it would have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. To be more favourably considered, the access should follow the southern field boundary and utilise the existing field access." The fundamental objection is that they don't want the entrance in the middle but it offers greater visibility and using the existing entrance would mean losing an acre of land because the gate is about 20m away from the southern hedge, the hedgerow then juts out 3/4 of the way along, then the bridge to reach the stables is another 20m or so along from the corner, plus the turns need to be sweeping for the fire tender. I explained this to him but he didn't comment until several weeks later when he issued the refusal on the deadline day. If I were to resubmit offering them the choice of materials & reducing the setback to 6m (which would put the gate inline with roadside hedgerow) do his statements suggest they will refuse it anyway? I don't know if a five bar gate would be preferable but if I were to put a (simple) solid wooden gate up, there would be no view of the track from any public viewpoint

I do understand that viewpoint but the track was to be 3.7m wide to meet the minimum requirement of the fire tender, the fencing was going to be set back by a metre to allow some extra room to manoeuvre. Post and rail fencing is in keeping with the existing fencing, the lands equestrian use and the surrounding area. The LPA have granted several similar driveways, other than the use of black tarmac, the one above is almost identical, so the decision is not consistent. The commercial looking entrance opposite is not what I was looking to achieve but there are other farm entrances like it along the road. The choice of gravel was to match the existing parking area around the stables but I wouldn't object to a different surface. The reclaimed cobblestones are in a heap onsite so I thought I could make use of them, again I would have accepted an alternative had i been aware they were disliked. The refusal quotes paragraph 170 of the NPPF which applies to "valued landscape" which I don't think my would be classified as (its not greenbelt, AONB, SSI, within a conservation area, an area of archaeological significance, a rare habitat etc) We have contacted a planning consultant so will await to hear back but, I am not sure about if it's possible to reduce the scale of the entrance while satisfying the access requirements of an 11m fire appliance.

Entrance to the farm opposite us

Thanks for all the responses. These were the photos used in my supporting statement - This is a nearby 250m long post and rail fenced track through the middle of a field which the LPA approved of a couple of years ago.

Thank you. I did try several planning consultants but unfortunately they either didn't get back to me, weren't able to answer questions I had (one suggested a planning lawyer) or quoted me 10k!

I wasn't planning on brick piers or a suburban looking entrance, just wondering if they jumped to that conclusion. There are quite a few post and rail fenced gravel tracks in the area.

Yes, we have lived in the area for a long time and were hoping to build something a little special but that would sit quietly within its surroundings, probably oak framed. Its so disappointing!

Hi, Thank you. I really feel very strongly about the location of the gate because to get from the existing gateway to the existing bridge while going round the hedge row which juts out, would create a really awkward path that would result in a long narrow strip of land of nearly an acre which is too narrow to do anything with. The gate is also barely 12' wide and to make it wider I would have to remove one of the trees either side if it, which have formed an archway over it and I would rather keep. But I would of been happy to compromise on the materials, it didn't occur to me that granite setts would be offensive!

Hi there! Thank you. We are fairly rural but there has been a lot of development in our area. All the other stable blocks surrounding the site have been granted permission. I don't fully understand the term "open countryside" I didn't think our site could be considered open because our hedges are so substantial! if I were to put up a solid gate, the track wouldn't be visible from outside the site at all. The 12m set back was because the road is 60mph, I thought it would be sensible if all construction traffic could access the site without obstructing the road, the farm opposite has a 6m set back and regularly results in articulated lorrys blocking both sides of the road, while the driver waits for someone to answer the intercom and open the gate. My horsebox is also over 6m. I hadn't really considered the entrance to be grandiose but I can see how they could have an image of it being suburban with brick piers etc.

Hi, Yes, it was a straight refusal from the planning officer, our parish council had "no comment". We are in the "rural area" but beyond the Greenbelt, AONB, conservation areas etc.

We have just been refused outline permission to replace our stables with a single dwelling, all matters were reserved, other than the access track. We have two fields (15 acres) divided by a stream, the stables are in the second field, 200m away from the main (NSL) road. Access is via our first field (unsurfaced so vehicle access is severely limited) and by crossing a concrete bridge over the stream. The land is extremely well screened with very substantial hedges / trees on all sides and through the centre, bordering the stream. There are no footpaths over the land or any of the adjacent land. There have already been 6 similar developments surrounding our site, two or our immediate neighbours have been granted two houses each. Five of the houses have been built on an area of archaeological significance, the 6th house has been built on a flood zone. Our site is not within either. Despite the LPA consulting many more departments than they did for the neighbours, we had no objections or negative comments from anyone consulted. Our application included various wildlife benefits such as a wildflower border either side of the track, the retention of all trees and hedges and the planting of additional trees. Reason(s) for Refusal: 1. The proposed development, by reason of the siting of the access / driveway across the middle of a field, visually accentuated by a double row of ranch style fencing, would appear as a prominent feature of the landscape and result in a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Furthermore, the proposed combination of tall wooden gates, their siting 12 metres into the field and the wide bellmouth entrance, accentuated by the use of granite sett surfacing would be a prominent and grandiose feature, out of scale with the modest access / driveway requirements for a single home and appearing out of keeping with the character of the rural landscape. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies CS1, CS7 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Informatives: Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2015. I feel the reason for refusal is unfair and much of which, including the post and rail fencing (referred to as "ranch style fencing") is both in keeping and permitted development. Are fences & gates, which don't require permission, valid reasons for refusal? Should he not have mentioned he objected to the distance the entrance would be set back (both the highways agency and fire department approved of this) or the use of reclaimed cobblestones, prior to refusal so I could have made amendments? He only mentioned that he didn't like the access through the middle, which I didn't want to compromise on because it improved the visibility splays and the utilisation of the land. I explained this and also provided images and the planning reference of a nearby approved class q application, which included the creation of a 250m post and rail bordered track through the middle of a field, intercepting a footpath and through another area of archaeological significance. I suggested there be consistency in determining harm. Any advice or opinions on this would be much appreciated!