Source: http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20214&start=15
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 22:24:06
Document Index: 646826811

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 11', 'art 14', 'art 16', 'art 19', 'art 2', 'art 11', 'art 2']

by arborlad » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:08 pm
annie08 wrote: Oh. Well they have submitted detailed information about the quality and type of materials they intend to use for the overall development in line with what is in the area already. A wooden fence would look very incongruous. I will ask the case officer tomorrow along with a lot of other questions. Thanks
You are correct, there's nothing available at B&Q that would fit the bill here, add to that, they may not allow any alterations or additions to a circa 120year old stone wall in a conservation area. If they do decide on something suitable, it's probably going to have to be free standing, getting an adequate fix in a stone wall is difficult and would the wall cope with the additional sail area added to it.
Over the years the farm hard standing has increased because of infill but it was previously at the same level as our driveway. The planning application includes for five parking spaces just over the wall. Any residents, visitors, tradesmen etc will essentially have a viewing platform over our entire rear garden and house as ground to wall height is 1m30
What happens in that immediate area would depend on a number of factors, but 1.3m could easily change by +/- 0.3m
Last edited by arborlad on Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
by MacadamB53 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:20 pm
the guide you posted makes good use of the word "should".
however, the latest GPDO has this to say:
by annie08 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:32 pm
Thanks for that. So, just to be clear, are you saying that as the wall measures 2.20 on our side they cant increase the height above the 1m30 on their side?
by MacadamB53 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:08 pm
annie08 wrote: Thanks for that. So, just to be clear, are you saying that as the wall measures 2.20 on our side they cant increase the height above the 1m30 on their side?
if you're addressing me the answer is "no" - I am not saying that.
which is good news for you as you want them to increase the height - right?
by Collaborate » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:23 pm
The problem with this is that the definition of "Building" specifically excludes a boundary wall: see below
(a) includes any structure or erection and, except in Class F of Part 2, Class B of Part 11, Classes A to I of Part 14, Classes A, B and C of Part 16 and Class T of Part 19, of Schedule 2, includes any part of a building; and
(b) does not include plant or machinery and, in Schedule 2, except in Class F of Part 2 and Class C of Part 11, does not include any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure;
A wall up to 2m height is permitted development by virtue of Part 2 Class A.
I think the where the level on one side has been artificially altered the wall will be measured from annie08's side.
by arborlad » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm
Because you are in a CA, the wall as is, may have to stay, as is.
by annie08 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:57 pm
Ok, many thanks. I think I may have come up with an idea. There is space to pull the parking spaces back. That would leave room to construct something similar to what is there at the moment ie the old chicken shed. It would provide privacy for us and a storage facility for one of the dwellings. They have proposed deviating from the original footprint already by way of adding a storage building to one of the stone barns so if they get permission for that maybe they will get permission to do what I'm suggesting.
by jonahinoz » Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:25 pm
As this is a new development, will building regs apply to the "retaining wall" ... something like wall thickness must be half the height ... with foundations to suit? No "dry stone" walls.
by annie08 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:00 pm
Many thanks for all your replies. We will see what the case officer says tomorrow. I have revised my preferred option to a covered parking area at that point. That way there would be a back wall and the gable ends protecting our privacy. They have proposed one of those nearby on the site so it might be allowed. I have enclosed photographs with our objections showing the elevated views across the whole of our garden from the farm side. I have also requested a site visit by the planning committee. As they say up here "shy bairns get nowt".
by MacadamB53 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:08 pm
the elevated views across the whole of our garden from the farm side.
those views are not being created by the proposal though - they exist right now?
or does the proposal involve raising the level near the wall?
by annie08 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:21 pm
Hi Mac - we are protected at the moment because there is an large old wooden shed there which will be demolished. The only people who could look over the wall were the farmer and his wife who used it for storage but the farm is empty now.
by annie08 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:12 am
We had a helpful meeting with the case officer who is going to visit us to see exactly how we would be impacted by the proposed development. She is also going to speak to the developers and suggest they consult with us.
The other boundary wall which backs onto part of the development is problematic too. The barns are disused having been used as livery stables. They want to construct a two storey dwelling so we will be overlooked. Some years ago the owner had to comply with new regs about storage of animal waste and, with no reference to us, built a concrete ramp attached to his side of the wall so the stable girls could push wheelbarrows up it and empty the contents into a skip. This meant our privacy was eradicated. We fixed a strong wooden trellis the same length as the ramp (approx 6') up to the height of the wall and then fixed fence panels to the top of that to restore our privacy. It looked incongruous but we grew evergreen ivy over it and looks fine from our side. We mentioned it to the case officer thinking we would have to take it down once the site is developed as the overall height is approx 9'. She says as it has been there for more than four years we can't be forced to take it down which was music to our ears in light of their wish to build a two storey dwelling. I'm sure the case officer is right from the lA's position but we are wondering if our fence is outside of a a Party Wall Surveyors remit? Or could he make a decision about its future. The only detrimental thing about it from the developers point of view is the appearance.
by Collaborate » Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:18 am
annie08 - does your house overlook the proposed development site?
by annie08 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:50 am
Yes Collaborate, to the north and west but we are on lower ground so it feels as if we will be the ones overlooked.
by arborlad » Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:33 am
annie08 wrote: Hi - I have started a new topic because my question relates to a different wall to the one I previously asked about.
..........might be worth having them merged now: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20194