Bought house. Council asking for fence to be taken down

GaleSF63

jojothefirst said:

Section62 said:

FreeBear said:

jojothefirst said: [the conifers] made the view at the junction far more restricting than the fence. I printed these off and showed the council when the visited on may 20th but even though he agreed with what i just said, it doesnt matter! 

I'm afraid I would have to agree the Highways Dept and the council - A 2m fence would restrict the view at that junction, and losing the conifer hedge has improved things considerably.

Now that the property is on the council's radar, planting another hedge and allowing it to grow could store up problems for the future. So follow their recommendations and put some 1m fence panels in.

I agree.  Looking at the old hedge the trunks are almost on the boundary, but all the branches on the road side have been carefully shorn off.

I suspect there has been some council involvement in the past - e.g. insisting the old hedge was cut back to the boundary so it didn't overhang the footway.

Those suggesting planting a 2m hedge have to realise this will need to be planted some distance in from the boundary and would result in quite a wide strip around a not very large garden being made unusable.

Yes you are very right. The garden isnt big and is our only play space for the kids so dont want to take more of the space up with wide hedges. 
And simply cuting the fence to 1m high gives no privacy so the garden becomes unusual. 

Is their any other options! Only thing i can think of is to ask to build a 2m high brick wall which doesnt solve the issue with their perceived lack of visability at the  junction ( the fence does not not cause a issue..... The cars parked on the road do however.

Where do i stand with other houses in the near by streets having 1m+ high fences...... Can i use that somehow without making a complaint against them? 

The other fences aren't in places that restrict visibility on a junction so probably are allowed.

Your back garden doesn't look very different in size to the side (I know Street View can distort what one sees though) - is there a reason why that can't be made into a space for the children?

jojothefirst

Section62 said:

jojothefirst said:

We bought a house at the end of last year which was totally renovated. It is a end terrace with a very small garden at the rear and a bigger garden to the side of the house which extends around 2m to the front of the house.

Just a thought, did the renovators leave the back garden screened off with a similar fence?  Is there a way of maximising this area as your 'private' garden?  If you needed more privacy here then you may have more luck getting consent from the council for something taller.

Also, the quote from the email from the council has a (sub?)heading "Fence".  Does that mean there were other points the planners have issues with?  You don't need to detail them on the thread, but if the renovators have done other things without the necessary consent(s) then it may impact on (a) the risk of planning/BC enforcement action and (b) what action (if any) you may want to take against the vendors.

Thanks for all the replies. Still trying to get my head around it all. 

Yes you are right, when he came to visit about the fence he noticed the shed i put up and now thats a issue as well. 

As my post was mainly asking about where i stood with regard to if the previous owner was liable for the fence that he put up, i didnt mention the shed as that is my fault as i put it up....... (i replaced a shed that was in the same spot but its now classed as a new structure)

Here is the rest of the email:

"Shed

 

I note that the side curtilage presents the most useable garden space of the property and that a timber shed has been placed in the corner.  The use of the side curtilage for residential garden and the siting of a shed is compatible in this area.  The design and appearance of the shed is acceptable within a residential garden. However, outbuildings are not normally encouraged forward of the principal elevation and you should relocate the shed further towards the rear of the property.

 

However, given the size of the shed relative the size of the garden, the shed will exceed householder permitted development limits notwithstanding its positioning within the side garden.  Therefore, you may wish to include the shed on any application you may submit for a revised enclosure."

Given that the shed needs planning anyway im edging towards putting a application in for the fence and shed in 1.

Im going to speak to highways tomorrow and see what the issue is with viability..... From my point of view you can see perfectly fine when u get to the junction. 

Have i got a leg to stand on if i evidence all the other houses on neighbouring roads that have 1m+ fences without planning? Am i likely to cause issues for my neighbours if i do this? 

jojothefirst

GaleSF63 said:

jojothefirst said:

Section62 said:

FreeBear said:

jojothefirst said: [the conifers] made the view at the junction far more restricting than the fence. I printed these off and showed the council when the visited on may 20th but even though he agreed with what i just said, it doesnt matter! 

I'm afraid I would have to agree the Highways Dept and the council - A 2m fence would restrict the view at that junction, and losing the conifer hedge has improved things considerably.

Now that the property is on the council's radar, planting another hedge and allowing it to grow could store up problems for the future. So follow their recommendations and put some 1m fence panels in.

I agree.  Looking at the old hedge the trunks are almost on the boundary, but all the branches on the road side have been carefully shorn off.

I suspect there has been some council involvement in the past - e.g. insisting the old hedge was cut back to the boundary so it didn't overhang the footway.

Those suggesting planting a 2m hedge have to realise this will need to be planted some distance in from the boundary and would result in quite a wide strip around a not very large garden being made unusable.

Yes you are very right. The garden isnt big and is our only play space for the kids so dont want to take more of the space up with wide hedges. 
And simply cuting the fence to 1m high gives no privacy so the garden becomes unusual. 

Is their any other options! Only thing i can think of is to ask to build a 2m high brick wall which doesnt solve the issue with their perceived lack of visability at the  junction ( the fence does not not cause a issue..... The cars parked on the road do however.

Where do i stand with other houses in the near by streets having 1m+ high fences...... Can i use that somehow without making a complaint against them? 

The other fences aren't in places that restrict visibility on a junction so probably are allowed.

Your back garden doesn't look very different in size to the side (I know Street View can distort what one sees though) - is there a reason why that can't be made into a space for the children?

To me, visabilty at the junction is absolutely fine apart from the cars parked up. And its definitely better than when the trees were there.

The back garden is very small. The house next door came up for sale before our house and we ruled out buying it purely because of the garden. We would not have bought this house had we known the side garden wouldnt be allowed to have privacy. 

I have spoken to house insurance and they said the only grounds we have for action against the previous buyer is if they knew the fence was a issue and deliberately did not declare it.

pinkteapot

jojothefirst said:

I have spoken to house insurance and they said the only grounds we have for action against the previous buyer is if they knew the fence was a issue and deliberately did not declare it.

Could you ask the Council if the letter you've received is the first notice of a problem that's been sent to the house? I'm not sure if they'd tell you if they sent anything to the previous owner, but they might... You'd then have evidence the seller was aware. Though the cost of pursuing the seller legally may be higher than that of getting the fence changed. 

Section62

jojothefirst said:

As my post was mainly asking about where i stood with regard to if the previous owner was liable for the fence that he put up, i didnt mention the shed as that is my fault as i put it up....... (i replaced a shed that was in the same spot but its now classed as a new structure)

Don't worry, you didn't need to mention the shed, it was just the 'Fence' (sub)heading made me wonder what else was an issue and if it was relevant to the fence and any action you may want to take against the vendor.

Part of the problem you have is being on the apex of two streets in that way your side garden is unusually exposed and therefore it was really important to get the shed siting just right.  It is a useful example for others to take note of that PD rights aren't always as generous as often believed.

jojothefirst said:

Given that the shed needs planning anyway im edging towards putting a application in for the fence and shed in 1.

You can do, but be aware that the letter was a very clear steer from the planners that they don't intend to budge on the fence issue.  If they are agreeable to let you have the shed (they don't have to) then you might want to think about whether it would be better to drop the fence to 'save' the shed.

In any event, I would ask the planner whether they would be willing to agree the shed separately from the fence (assuming the shed is OK) if you make a combined application, or if they would refuse the whole application.

Tactically it might be better to get the shed agreed first, then come back with a later application for the fence.

jojothefirst said:

Im going to speak to highways tomorrow and see what the issue is with viability..... From my point of view you can see perfectly fine when u get to the junction.

See below...

jojothefirst said:

Have i got a leg to stand on if i evidence all the other houses on neighbouring roads that have 1m+ fences without planning? Am i likely to cause issues for my neighbours if i do this?

I responded on this point in a previous post.  What people have done in other streets isn't relevant, and what has been done in your street is only relevant if it has altered the street scene to such an extent that higher fences have become the norm.

The 1m rule only applies to whether or not the fence/wall is permitted development (which is also a kind of planning consent) or if you need to apply for consent.  There's simply no point trying to argue your case on it being PD as it very clearly isn't.  Also, from what I've seen of your street I think the planner has good grounds to say a wall/fence of more than ~1m would be inappropriate.

You best bet may be to agree a 'set back' line in which part of the side garden is fenced off with a slightly higher than 1m fence, and the remainder has a very low fence.  But given how small the garden is (plus with a large shed) you may not have the space to make that work.

jojothefirst said:

To me, visabilty at the junction is absolutely fine apart from the cars parked up. And its definitely better than when the trees were there.

The council have put double yellow line waiting restrictions around the junction - which means they are clearly concerned about the visibility and sight lines at the junction.  The junction is complex and the highway authority will also be thinking about visibility of pedestrians and cyclists.  I can see why they would be concerned.

Legally, when there was a hedge there, the council could have served notice on the property owner to have the hedge cut back to maintain/improve sight lines.  The can't use the same powers to make you remove a fence, hence the planning system restricts what people can do with walls and fences adjacent to a highway.  So from their perspective, replacement of the trees with a similar-height fence/wall is not beneficial.

The council may also throw in a personal safety argument - that with a low fence people walking along either street would be able to see another person who might pose a threat, whereas at an acute corner with a high fence somone could be hiding unseen.  The personal safety card is a difficult one to argue against - designers are supposed to be thinking about these risks and designing them out. You may need to get creative if they use that argument.

John_Pierpoint

That is a FRONT garden in anyone's book. The council will never change its mind.

If you refuse to do as you are told you become a CRIMINAL.

You can delay things by appealing with documents only or a fool blown public enquiry. I have aneighbour who did that (and won) but it cost him £25k [The council lost because they were incompetant and took 5 years to get to that stage and then produced documentation that did not comply with the letter of planning law] Your council knows you (most probably) have not got a spare £25k.

Section62

John_Pierpoint said:

If you refuse to do as you are told you become a CRIMINAL.

That's a bit OTT.

If the council serves an enforcement notice and the OP ignores it, they will be committing an offence.  But there are several steps to go through before the OP could be convicted by a court.

They aren't at a point where 'criminal' needs to be in block capitals.

John_Pierpoint said:

You can delay things by appealing with documents only or a fool blown public enquiry. I have aneighbour who did that (and won) but it cost him £25k [The council lost because they were incompetant and took 5 years to get to that stage and then produced documentation that did not comply with the letter of planning law] Your council knows you (most probably) have not got a spare £25k.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "fool blown public enquiry", but that isn't really how it works.

If it is a householder application for something minor the appeal will almost exclusively be dealt with by written representations only.

More complicated applications can be appealed via a hearing or inquiry.  However, whilst it is free to appeal a decision, there is an expectation on the parties to act reasonably, and a planning inspector has powers to award costs against a party deemed to have acted unreasonably.  For a hearing or inquiry there really needs to be evidence to be given by an expert witness, and if the appeal is dealt with at inquiry the council is likely to want legal representation (e.g. a barrister)

So yes, the costs can quickly mount up - which is why anyone considering appealing a planning decision should think carefully before committing to anything other than an appeal by written representations only.  Especially if their case is weak to start with.

diystarter7

John_Pierpoint said:

That is a FRONT garden in anyone's book. The council will never change its mind.

If you refuse to do as you are told you become a CRIMINAL.

You can delay things by appealing with documents only or a fool blown public enquiry. I have aneighbour who did that (and won) but it cost him £25k [The council lost because they were incompetant and took 5 years to get to that stage and then produced documentation that did not comply with the letter of planning law] Your council knows you (most probably) have not got a spare £25k.

I've found my council to be lacking a  spine when it comes to real breaches of rules caused by those that dont have a penny to their name. However, when a hard-working man or woman is genuinely caught out like this example they come down hard on them. This is because a lawful man/woman that has and is working hard to make better life for themselves, their family and the community are hunted down hard and make it personal.
The OP was not aware and most likely the previous owner was not aware.

Just trying telling the council about the regular noise bandits, those subletting a council property, parking in the front garden no crossover, blocking your drive etc and etc and you may find most councils will do naff all. The other day I sent pictures of an ignorant fool not cleaning up the dog mess got an email back with an empty thank you and the kick in the teeth, due to covid we are short-staffed. What they are really saying, mind your own business and don't waste our time

_Sam_

Ramouth said:

What about a 1m wall with 1m railings on top?  This would make the garden dog proof while still allowing some visibility.  A nice climbing rose would give some privacy over time.  Not a cheap solution but it might be a good compromise.

I would be tempted to go this way too. Build a low wall that matches the rest in the neighbourhood, with discrete metal railings on top that would make the garden secure for dogs and kids and allow visibility for the highway users. Perhaps the planners won’t object to this.

I would then speak with the Highways and ask them which part of the boundary they need clear, and plant climbers alongside the wall except in where it needs to be clear.

Ath_Wat

diystarter7 said:

John_Pierpoint said:

That is a FRONT garden in anyone's book. The council will never change its mind.

If you refuse to do as you are told you become a CRIMINAL.

You can delay things by appealing with documents only or a fool blown public enquiry. I have aneighbour who did that (and won) but it cost him £25k [The council lost because they were incompetant and took 5 years to get to that stage and then produced documentation that did not comply with the letter of planning law] Your council knows you (most probably) have not got a spare £25k.

Just trying telling the council about the regular noise bandits, those subletting a council property, parking in the front garden no crossover, blocking your drive etc and etc and you may find most councils will do naff all. The other day I sent pictures of an ignorant fool not cleaning up the dog mess got an email back with an empty thank you and the kick in the teeth, due to covid we are short-staffed. What they are really saying, mind your own business and don't waste our time

What do you think a photo of someone not cleaning up dog mess proves, and what do you expect the council to do about it?