Making combined front/back garden private

Rosa_Damascena

twopenny said:

Fencing can be climbed, either direction, shrubs can't.
Both would be ideal. 
Roses are good protection and give colour, fragrance and cut flowers. If the fence turns out to be a problem a rose hedge is a good answer. 
Rugosa are very low maintenance or fast growing climbers trained horizontally.

Yes, something good and thorny

MissA44

@Bendy_House - We've spoken to the solicitor and there appears to be nothing in particular in the documents surrounding a wall height except for it being mentioned as part of the agreed planning permission for the erection of the garage where it states the wall should not exceed 1m high but my solicitor believes that relates to the period where the garage was being built and was temporary (?). Aside from that he has however mentioned it is likely we will need planning permission as it is within 1m to the highway. I'm going to speak with him again around what his suggestions are once the stamp duty deadline has passed, i stupidly didnt think he would be able to offer any advice on this so thank you  

@Section62 - Thank you for the advice. I will be picking up with the solicitor to get some clarification on what we can do. The property isn't as modern as that screenshot implies - the right side is actually a cottage dating back to the 1800 thats been randomly extended on. Unfortunately we viewed it and fell in love with its character and charm so we are looking past the odd quirks (random side conservatory and open garden) and trying to see if we can make them work for us. Its in a quiet village and the road on the left of the screenshot is a quiet cul-de-sac so we are happy with this. 

@Davesnave - Thank you for your suggestions here with the shrubs and greenery as a relatively new gardener its great to know we have some existing options that can be worked with and expanded on. 


@Norman_Castle - This is exactly where my mind went to initially, thank you. And i definitely am interested in your thoughts, we have been breaking our chain this weekend and moving out so its been a very manic few days. 

@goldfinches @twopenny thank you also for your further suggestions on shrubs as i would be completely clueless. I really appreciate the help! 
 

theoretica

As others have said, plants seem the best option - but do remember to prune the sidewalk side if you don't want to annoy the neighbours.  Over the dormant season is a good time to plant - before about March.

Section62

MissA44 said:

@Bendy_House - We've spoken to the solicitor and there appears to be nothing in particular in the documents surrounding a wall height except for it being mentioned as part of the agreed planning permission for the erection of the garage where it states the wall should not exceed 1m high but my solicitor believes that relates to the period where the garage was being built and was temporary (?). Aside from that he has however mentioned it is likely we will need planning permission as it is within 1m to the highway.

If it is referred to in the planning consent, it is most likely a planning condition. The planning consent letter/notice will make that clear as it will mention that "consent is granted subject to conditions...."

If it is a condition then you will need to apply for (planning) consent to have the condition removed if you want a higher wall, but you should also check the wording very carefully as the condition may relate to sight lines (see my previous post) and may be structured in such a way that you can't have a fence or plants over 1m high either.

I'm not sure what the solicitor means by 'temporary'.  The condition might specify that it only applies for a period of time (e.g. during construction) but normally conditions relating to heights of boundary features are permanent (subject to subsequent application to remove them).  I'd be slightly nervous the solicitor is outwith their knowledge area - if this is a planning condition then the duration would be explicit in the decision notice, there would be no need for them to 'believe' anything.

MissA44 said:

@Section62 - Thank you for the advice. I will be picking up with the solicitor to get some clarification on what we can do. The property isn't as modern as that screenshot implies - the right side is actually a cottage dating back to the 1800 thats been randomly extended on. Unfortunately we viewed it and fell in love with its character and charm so we are looking past the odd quirks (random side conservatory and open garden) and trying to see if we can make them work for us. Its in a quiet village and the road on the left of the screenshot is a quiet cul-de-sac so we are happy with this. 

Was land originally belonging to the cottage sold off to create the access road and/or the development behind?

Also, is this the property with the unregistered land?  If so, is any of that land along the boundaries?  It might make more sense if this land is highway (or highway related) - which is a common reason for finding bits of land associated with a property not being registered.

MissA44

When I questioned him about the document he said - 
‘ The document you are referring to is simply an historic Planning Permission whereby a condition was imposed that meant before the intended works and started, and throughout the works, the height of the walls and shrubbery were not permitted to be higher than 1 metre on the front of the property. This is of course a very historical Planning Permission so the walls and shrubbery no longer need to remain below 1 metre in height.’

Do you think this is not the case and it’s still very much in place? 

Yes the land was sold off to create access to the development approx 25 years ago. 

And yes. The unregistered land is the patch of land within the screenshot at the front left, not including the garage. The current owner purchased the house from his daughter 20 years ago without a mortgage so it wasn’t picked up till recently. 

Section62

MissA44 said:

When I questioned him about the document he said - 
‘ The document you are referring to is simply an historic Planning Permission whereby a condition was imposed that meant before the intended works and started, and throughout the works, the height of the walls and shrubbery were not permitted to be higher than 1 metre on the front of the property. This is of course a very historical Planning Permission so the walls and shrubbery no longer need to remain below 1 metre in height.’

Do you think this is not the case and it’s still very much in place?

The solicitor has had the benefit of actually reading the consent....  but if that interpretation is correct then it is one of the strangest conditions I've ever heard of. So my gut feel is they have got it wrong.

Is it possible for you to share the wording of the condition?  If you don't want to post it on the public forum I don't mind if you want to PM it to me.

In terms of it being a "very historical" consent, that is an odd choice of words.  If a condition applied before and during the construction work then it would cease to have effect on completion of the works - the condition would "no longer be applicable" - and it would be clear and unequivocal that was the case.

Conditions don't cease to apply because they are "very historical" - they cease to apply because the applicable circumstances no longer exist or have become irrelevant.

The word "shrubbery" is also odd.  Is that in the condition, or is it the solicitor's expression?

MissA44 said:

Yes the land was sold off to create access to the development approx 25 years ago. 

And yes. The unregistered land is the patch of land within the screenshot at the front left, not including the garage. The current owner purchased the house from his daughter 20 years ago without a mortgage so it wasn’t picked up till recently. 

This needs to be checked then to make sure the land isn't highway or amenity land.  It doesn't need to be owned by the council, or registered, for it to be highway - and that would be an obvious explanation for the anomaly.

goldfinches

@MissA44 - you might like to have a look at these Gardener's World How To videos on choosing, planting and trimming various types of hedges when you get five minutes to spare. 
https://www.gardenersworld.com/search/?q=planting+a+hedge

gozaimasu

Section62 said:

It's a wall/fence well above 1m high adjacent to a highway and therefore would need planning consent.

Whilst I know of this rule, I'm not fully familiar with the legislation. How far inside the boundary wall would be considered "adjacent"? So if the OP installed a fence 1m inside their boundary, 1m away from the wall, could they build a fence as high as they wanted? Fair enough you lose 1m around all sides of the property but you get the privacy you want.

Section62

gozaimasu said:

Whilst I know of this rule, I'm not fully familiar with the legislation. How far inside the boundary wall would be considered "adjacent"?

"Adjacent" isn't defined in the legislation, so the starting point will be what the local planning authority regard 'adjacent' to be in any given case, having regard to 'reasonableness' and to case law.

One consideration is whether the wall/fence forms the main or principal boundary feature enclosing the property.

If the property owner/applicant disagrees they can appeal the decision.

A planning inspector will then apply the same approach to deciding what "adjacent" means in the specific circumstances.

If either party are still unhappy they could seek permission for a judicial review of the inspector's decision - in which case a judge will decide what "adjacent" means in the specific circumstances - which might have the effect of also creating a precedent that future decision makers would have to have regard to in other cases.

But the short answer is "it depends".

gozaimasu said:

So if the OP installed a fence 1m inside their boundary, 1m away from the wall, could they build a fence as high as they wanted? Fair enough you lose 1m around all sides of the property but you get the privacy you want.

It depends on the above.  E.g. would the OP be able to argue that a 2m high fence 1m inside the lower (existing) is not the main or principal boundary feature enclosing the property if the LPA says it is?

There is no one absolutely right answer - because it depends entirely on the interpretation of the legislation in the specific circumstances.

Also, it shouldn't be forgotten that the 1m/2m rule is solely in relation to one aspect of permitted development.  Permitted development isn't necessarily applicable in this case, or in any other.  So a taller than 1m fence/wall wouldn't necessarily be allowed as PD just because it is more than 'X' metres away from the highway.