Service strip fencing

michellemybelle

A little update for you. The planning department have written to the owners and said that the fence should be no more than 1 m high. The Green shrubbery should have  been retained and the fence has to come down even if they apply for planning for the fence it would be rejected now.  Whether the owners of the house comply with this remains to be seen.  I guess if planning say it’s wrong then they have to. 

AdrianC

michellemybelle said:

A little update for you. The planning department have written to the owners and said that the fence should be no more than 1 m high. The Green shrubbery should have  been retained and the fence has to come down even if they apply for planning for the fence it would be rejected now.  Whether the owners of the house comply with this remains to be seen.  I guess if planning say it’s wrong then they have to. 

The local authority's planning enforcement team will almost certainly be stretched to breaking point. They will have to decide how much time and energy they put into something relatively trivial like this, when there are almost certainly far more substantive and intrusive breaches elsewhere.

They have not been told the fence cannot be more than a metre - they've been told it can't be more than a metre without PP.

If they do put in a retrospective application, why are you so certain it will be rejected?

Those little plants look like they're probably a leylandii of some kind. Frankly, I'd FAR rather live near a wooden fence like that than a wall of unkempt, untrimmed leylandii. Because in a few years time, they will be taller, thicker, darker... and overhanging the actual road surface.

lookstraightahead

Practically it looks like they just moved their original fence in the first picture, to the other side of their extension. So by having the extension, does that mean they now have to have a completely open plan garden?

if I were them I would now be looking at any changes anyone had made on the estate and reporting it, including how people park etc. I bet most have done things they shouldn't as it's just not practical or safe (although I am naive to such things as I don't understand this type of layout)

does it also mean that all the shrubs on other houses shouldn't be more than a metre high as well? 

ProDave

michellemybelle said:

A little update for you. The planning department have written to the owners and said that the fence should be no more than 1 m high. The Green shrubbery should have  been retained and the fence has to come down even if they apply for planning for the fence it would be rejected now.  Whether the owners of the house comply with this remains to be seen.  I guess if planning say it’s wrong then they have to. 

If I were the owner the green shrubbery would now be replaced with a Leylandii hedge. 

GDB2222

lookstraightahead said:

Practically it looks like they just moved their original fence in the first picture, to the other side of their extension. So by having the extension, does that mean they now have to have a completely open plan garden?

if I were them I would now be looking at any changes anyone had made on the estate and reporting it, including how people park etc. I bet most have done things they shouldn't as it's just not practical or safe (although I am naive to such things as I don't understand this type of layout)

does it also mean that all the shrubs on other houses shouldn't be more than a metre high as well? 

If you look at the plan in the OP, it shows the fence layout that they were allowed.

Plus planting consisting of ferns, not leylandii.

I am lucky enough to live in a garden suburb that was built 100 years ago. It’s still a lovely place to live, precisely because people objected to changes like that monstrous fence. 

The next stage is for the op to speak to his local councillors, to put pressure on the planning enforcement team to prioritise this case. 

AdrianC

GDB2222 said:

I am lucky enough to live in a garden suburb that was built 100 years ago. It’s still a lovely place to live, precisely because people objected to changes like that monstrous fence. 

There's a world of difference between the revolutionary concept behind garden suburbs, and yet another identikit pack-em-tight modern new build estate.

Ebenezer Howard would be turning in his grave at the comparison.

lookstraightahead

GDB2222 said:

lookstraightahead said:

Practically it looks like they just moved their original fence in the first picture, to the other side of their extension. So by having the extension, does that mean they now have to have a completely open plan garden?

if I were them I would now be looking at any changes anyone had made on the estate and reporting it, including how people park etc. I bet most have done things they shouldn't as it's just not practical or safe (although I am naive to such things as I don't understand this type of layout)

does it also mean that all the shrubs on other houses shouldn't be more than a metre high as well? 

If you look at the plan in the OP, it shows the fence layout that they were allowed.

Plus planting consisting of ferns, not leylandii.

I am lucky enough to live in a garden suburb that was built 100 years ago. It’s still a lovely place to live, precisely because people objected to changes like that monstrous fence. 

The next stage is for the op to speak to his local councillors, to put pressure on the planning enforcement team to prioritise this case. 

I don't disagree to be honest but it has to be the same for everyone.

I live in an area with lots of listed buildings so I do get it, but I'm not sure how living open plan is sustainable. How do you secure your garden after an extension in this case? 

GDB2222

lookstraightahead said:

GDB2222 said:

lookstraightahead said:

Practically it looks like they just moved their original fence in the first picture, to the other side of their extension. So by having the extension, does that mean they now have to have a completely open plan garden?

if I were them I would now be looking at any changes anyone had made on the estate and reporting it, including how people park etc. I bet most have done things they shouldn't as it's just not practical or safe (although I am naive to such things as I don't understand this type of layout)

does it also mean that all the shrubs on other houses shouldn't be more than a metre high as well? 

If you look at the plan in the OP, it shows the fence layout that they were allowed.

Plus planting consisting of ferns, not leylandii.

I am lucky enough to live in a garden suburb that was built 100 years ago. It’s still a lovely place to live, precisely because people objected to changes like that monstrous fence. 

The next stage is for the op to speak to his local councillors, to put pressure on the planning enforcement team to prioritise this case. 

I don't disagree to be honest but it has to be the same for everyone.

I live in an area with lots of listed buildings so I do get it, but I'm not sure how living open plan is sustainable. How do you secure your garden after an extension in this case? 

The plan in the OP shows exactly how the garden was to be secured. The new fence was to run up to the extension, but not go between it and the road. 

As it stands, the new fence blocks the window in the extension, so the owners would be better off without the fence. They just need a net curtain inside, if they can’t stand the idea of someone getting a glimpse of their home.

AdrianC

There's the original planning for the build. The developers followed that.

Now the home owner has decided to change that, same as they decided to build an extension. Some changes don't need PP, some do. They've assumed this one doesn't, but it does. Now they get to apply for retrospective PP. If they don't, or it's refused, the council might enforce, or might not.

Section62

AdrianC said:

If they do put in a retrospective application, why are you so certain it will be rejected?

AdrianC said:

There's the original planning for the build. The developers followed that.

Now the home owner has decided to change that, same as they decided to build an extension. Some changes don't need PP, some do. They've assumed this one doesn't, but it does. Now they get to apply for retrospective PP. If they don't, or it's refused, the council might enforce, or might not.

The history isn't quite like that.

The owners put in an application for an extension and modification of the garden/fence.

The planners required alterations to the design which lessened the impact on the open plan nature of the estate, before granting consent to that altered design.  The agent had an awareness that changes of the type wanted were not acceptable to the planning authority.

The as-built fence not only reverses the agreed alterations to the design, it goes further and encloses an area of land which the previous (unacceptable) plan didn't - wholly in conflict with the reasoning the LPA gave for why the previous plan was unacceptable.

Maybe the owners didn't know about the discussions the agent had with the planners.  But to end up with an as-built that far away from the consented design - on an aspect the planners have expressly objected to - is stretching one's luck to a point where nobody can really get upset about if the LPA catch up with you.

Some PD rights have been removed from the property (at the time of the original construction(?)), so it isn't entirely clear whether or not PD rights for a 1m fence still exist.  It is uncertain whether the LPA are now allowing that as an amendment to the consented plan, or if it is indeed PD.