Erection of 1.8m fence adjacent to highway

[Amala Singh]

My house is a new build, around 2.5 years old. Extended the fence to the right side, as I own the space. In the drawing the red lines are previous fence. I extended the fence to my legal boundary limit so I can enjoy the space. The builder sent me email to take it down as I am not allowed to alter the borders , as in the deed without planning permission. So I applied for lawful development certificate. The fee is around 200+ pounds. They validated and accepted. Then came back and asked me to withdraw, as I put in a wront application type. He said fence over 1m and adjacent to highway need a planning permission. Actually everything is within planning permission. So got confused. Then asked him, if I apply as a different type, will I get permission. He said, most probably it will get rejected, as the space is supposed to be for soft landscaping.  Again I got confused. It has been couple of months, I have been investigating, investigating. I didn't want to spend another 200+ for another application and get it rejected.

 

And then google brought me here. I noticed there are some discussions already about it. I get knowledgeble every day. I went to a PP website, even paid 100+ pounds for consultation. they said spend another 700+ for planning statement, found they want to milk money with probability of positive outcome.

 

I know from forums 'Adjacent to highway' is meant by different inspectors differently. So the council officer should have rejected my application and should have told reason than asking me to withdraw the application. It is a kind of citizen scam. To use my legal boundary, they put in too many rules. This law of 'adjacent to highway' is totally stupid. You can say it is for safety. If it is for safety reason , the law should say safety reasons. It is all presumable and gives varieties of opinions. Many places they ask to cut down the fence for drivers visibility. The hedges are allowed. If the hedges can block visibility , it is still allowed. Totally stupid again. 

 

Now coming to the point again. 'Adjacent to highway/pathway' all put together. Adjacent not defined well. Some places they ask to put back 1m. Now. my question is the pathway is divided by verge and tree is planted there. In most cases, highway, path followed by verge, here the path is split by verge. So , there is no visibility issue for drivers definitely as the fence is many meters away from highway. Now do they need to consider the visibility for the walkers as well?

 

I have inadvertenly withdrew the application and now I am lamenting for that. I have sent an email to the council, to take the application back. Most probably they will not do so.

 

If they refused to give me the certification instead of withdrawing it, probably they should have given some reasons, how much distance I have to leave etc? Probably I should have put in hedges in front. In the beginning , I didn't know all these nonsenses.

 

Now what should I do?

[DevilDamo]

It sounds like you have changed the use of the public amenity space to your private residential garden and enclosed it. Just because you may legally own that space does not necessarily mean you can use it as part of your residential garden and curtilage.

 

You need to check the original Planning approval for the site and see what that piece of land is defined as. If the above is correct (public amenity), then you will need to submit a Full Planning application which includes the change of use.

[bassanclan]

You also need to check exactly what the deed says.

 

Also it doesn't look that nice!

 

As an aside, you don't need planning permission for a 6ft high hedge.

[Amala Singh]

1 hour ago, bassanclan said:

You also need to check exactly what the deed says.

 

Also it doesn't look that nice!

 

As an aside, you don't need planning permission for a 6ft high hedge.

It is all generic deed. It says I should not extend the boundaries without the consent of council and the builder. The builders put in some native hedges, but I removed them to secure the property with fence. The colour will fade away, so I think it is fine. But will that matter? My question was about the legality of calling next to high way , but it is too far away from the high way, and the path is separate. So I want to skip the PP with that kind of escape. The council outsmarted me by making me withdrawing the application so I cannot appeal against the rule.

[Amala Singh]

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

It sounds like you have changed the use of the public amenity space to your private residential garden and enclosed it. Just because you may legally own that space does not necessarily mean you can use it as part of your residential garden and curtilage.

 

You need to check the original Planning approval for the site and see what that piece of land is defined as. If the above is correct (public amenity), then you will need to submit a Full Planning application which includes the change of use.

The officer did not mention that while asking me to withdraw the application. He sighted it is above 1m next to high way. And he mentioned it is meant to be soft landscaping. That is what  made me confuse.  The deed did not say anything about public amenity or curtilage, I believe so. Otherwise the officer might have hinted me. They just want to discourage me altering it.

 

[Roundtuit]

19 minutes ago, Amala Singh said:

It is all generic deed. It says I should not extend the boundaries without the consent of council and the builder. The builders put in some native hedges, but I removed them to secure the property with fence.

Just to be clear; you want us to help you find a way to circumvent the boundary constraints you accepted when you bought the house?

[DevilDamo]

41 minutes ago, Amala Singh said:

The officer did not mention that while asking me to withdraw the application. He sighted it is above 1m next to high way. And he mentioned it is meant to be soft landscaping. That is what  made me confuse.  The deed did not say anything about public amenity or curtilage, I believe so. Otherwise the officer might have hinted me. They just want to discourage me altering it.

 

It is adjacent to a highway. And a highway can also include a public footpath. PD allows you up to 1m. Anything more would require Planning. But do your deeds state you cannot erect any fence without approval? If so, then that would theoretically take away your PD rights and any height fence would require Planning.

Edited June 17 by DevilDamo

[Amala Singh]

5 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

It is adjacent to a highway. And a highway can also include a public footpath. PD allows you up to 1m. Anything more would require Planning. But do your deeds state you cannot erect any fence without approval? If so, then that would theoretically take away your PD rights and any height fence would require Planning.

Yes. Deed states I cannot alter boundaries without PP.  Only thing the builder can do is, complaining to the council. Council can enforce. But only if it is unlawful right? ha ha

[Amala Singh]

Just now, Amala Singh said:

Yes. Deed states I cannot alter boundaries without PP.  Only thing the builder can do is, complaining to the council. Council can enforce. But only if it is unlawful right? ha ha

I am under the impression the path is not part of high way as it is separate, divided by verge. That is what my argument. Otherwise, no option than PP

 

[Amala Singh]

36 minutes ago, Roundtuit said:

Just to be clear; you want us to help you find a way to circumvent the boundary constraints you accepted when you bought the house?

It was a lengthy document, you sign and forget. But when I spoke to the builder once, they said I can do anything after 2 years. But she misled me. The deed specifies a period of 5 years some where. So does it mean, I cannot escape PP? The council is not talking about deed. They forced me to withdraw because of the law. But my point is, the changes could be within limits, if inspected by a specialist.

[ProDave]

The planning officer is right, that is what the guidelines say,  no fence above 1M adjacent to the highway without PP.  You could move the fence back 1 metre, then it is not "adjacent" but that is very subjective and not defined.

 

Or put the fence back where it was, plant a nice hedge on the boundary wait for it to grow and let the fence fall down.  I have a BIL in a similar sort of house where only a fraction of the garden was originally enclosed.  He now has a large garden enclosed by a Beech hedge on the boundary.

[DevilDamo]

8 hours ago, Amala Singh said:

Yes. Deed states I cannot alter boundaries without PP.  Only thing the builder can do is, complaining to the council. Council can enforce. But only if it is unlawful right? ha ha

Well there’s your answer. Altering the boundary requires Planning. You’re responsible in complying with the rules, not the builder.

[DevilDamo]

8 hours ago, Amala Singh said:

I am under the impression the path is not part of high way as it is separate, divided by verge. That is what my argument. Otherwise, no option than PP

 

Unfortunately, that isn’t correct. You’re also a corner plot which comes with its added restrictions in terms of PD.

[ProDave]

If the builder only cares that you satisfy the planners, then ask your planner what their definition of "adjacent" to the highway is?  They may let you have a fence a bit closer to the highway, still with an open area adjacent to it and be able to fence off part of your garden.  That would be a good compromise.

[Amala Singh]

3 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If the builder only cares that you satisfy the planners, then ask your planner what their definition of "adjacent" to the highway is?  They may let you have a fence a bit closer to the highway, still with an open area adjacent to it and be able to fence off part of your garden.  That would be a good compromise.

who the planner? Planning officer from council? They give as less information as possible , that is how they made me withdraw the application. Adjacent to high way is not a strict term by law, the authorities can decide on case by case. If the officer visited the site , how much is adjacent, In most scenarios it is 1m. But they dont want me to change anything. Otherwise I am willing to compromise, I can put back original hedges they laid, and put the fence back of it.  Probably I can wait until the enforcement letter, so I can appeal and discuss. 

[ProDave]

There have been cases on here where if you stand on the footpath and reach out with your arm and cannot touch the fence then it is deemed not to be "adjacent" but it is very subjective.

 

Try re submitting with the fence 1 metre from the footpath, and see what they say, argue you are moved it back so it is no longer "adjacent" and you have left an open strip of land.

[saveasteading]

10 hours ago, Amala Singh said:

says I should not extend the boundaries without the consent of council and the builder. 

So you shouldn't. 

[Amala Singh]

40 minutes ago, ProDave said:

There have been cases on here where if you stand on the footpath and reach out with your arm and cannot touch the fence then it is deemed not to be "adjacent" but it is very subjective.

 

Try re submitting with the fence 1 metre from the footpath, and see what they say, argue you are moved it back so it is no longer "adjacent" and you have left an open strip of land.

Actually it is 'lawful development certificate' , not PP. I want to circumvent PP as it is a lengthy process, but I may do at the cost of another 200+ pounds. Can also wait until Enforcement action, if they want to do. Council is too busy to do Enforcement action, so never know. But I can appeal at Enforcement if any and negotiate which may be better option than PP.

[joe90]

This from gov document…

Footpaths: a highway over which the public has a right of way on foot only.

[Hughgo12]

There are rules in place to stop people doing what they want and becoming a free for all.

 

For example; looking at your photo it would seem that none of your neighbors have front fences, it would be common to see this on the deeds and planning in developments as there would be rules against erecting fences, parking on footpaths, leaving bins out, maintenance fees etc.  

 

But as always, some people have no regard for these and just do whatever they want 

[joe90]

Although I have fought planners in the past and don’t have high regard for them, part of their job is to maintain a landscape that is consistent and in keeping with the surroundings for the benefit of everyone. Whilst we might not all agree with the rules I think your fence where you have built it is ugly and not in keeping with its surroundings and neighbours. 

[Amala Singh]

3 hours ago, joe90 said:

Although I have fought planners in the past and don’t have high regard for them, part of their job is to maintain a landscape that is consistent and in keeping with the surroundings for the benefit of everyone. Whilst we might not all agree with the rules I think your fence where you have built it is ugly and not in keeping with its surroundings and neighbours. 

Ugly is very contextual sir. Even the hedges look ugly to some people.  I am not sure why fence should be ugly as fences are there every where and it is the same wood. Nevertheless,  thanks for your feedback. 

[Amala Singh]

4 hours ago, Hughgo12 said:

There are rules in place to stop people doing what they want and becoming a free for all.

 

For example; looking at your photo it would seem that none of your neighbors have front fences, it would be common to see this on the deeds and planning in developments as there would be rules against erecting fences, parking on footpaths, leaving bins out, maintenance fees etc.  

 

But as always, some people have no regard for these and just do whatever they want 

A neighbour has placed a fence the other side. But there is hedge before that. It may not be seen in the images. But the fence is open as it is the drive way. My intention was not actually 'no regard'. I wanted to safeguard my property against the walkers. I was told by many people a fence does not need PP. I came to know all these hassles , opinions after installing it. I regret it . Because installing a fence is very expensive. Taking that down also costs half of it. If I take that down, I lose safeguarding the premise, lose privacy and the space I can use it a hobby space for gardening etc. Making it empty and you own, not able to safe guard you, do not make much sense as well.

 

As well, it is considerably large space, I have to maintain, the terrain is not flat. I have to trim the hedges, mow the lawn. It is too hard for me if I cannot keep the garden space the way I want to. The space could have been not sold to me instead.

[DevilDamo]

Your deeds state that you require Planning to alter the boundary treatments. So PD via a LDC application is not an option. You would require formal Planning for any fence, wall or gate at any height and in whatever location. It couldn’t be any clearer.

[bassanclan]

Unless you have taken photos from a misleading angle. There is no way that the fence is going to be ins the scope of permitted development. Your deeds remove your rights of permitted development for the fence anyway so it's a planning application or nothing.

 

If you put in a retrospective planning application I very much doubt you would get planning permission for what you have done, nor win on appeal.

 

You are already on the radar for enforcement action, so I doubt they are going to just forget about it and appeals etc waste your time and money. Given that the local authority have a slam dunk case and you have seemingly ignored their advice they may well seek costs and/or a fine.

 

Be pragmatic.

Eat humble pie.

Listen to what they would accept.

Grow a dense hedge if you really want to