wall proximity to cobb wall

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby ukmicky » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:17 pm

Remove the earth and use pots for your plants.:)

We need Pilman on this one especially as its a conservation area
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby MacadamB53 » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:01 pm

Hi hobbyfarmer,

'Unauthorised wall and back fill of soil constituting the the raising of the levels of land and an engineering operation at...'

a wall like yours measuring less than 2m in height which is not constructed adjacent to a highway was granted planning permission by Part 2 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 - fact - so I've no idea why the LPA think its "unauthorised"...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6070
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby hobbyfarmer » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:33 am

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi hobbyfarmer,

'Unauthorised wall and back fill of soil constituting the the raising of the levels of land and an engineering operation at...'

a wall like yours measuring less than 2m in height which is not constructed adjacent to a highway was granted planning permission by Part 2 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 - fact - so I've no idea why the LPA think its "unauthorised"...

Kind regards, Mac

Many thanks for this MacadamB53. Plse excuse my ignorance in planning law but i am totally out of my depth with all of this: where can i find evidence as above? what am i searching for? I don't know what i am looking for. plse could you give me some pointers of where/what to serarch for.

Could i also ask yourself or anyone else the meaning of something in the councils letter?

It starts: 'I can confirm that these works are unauthorised in planning terms as they do not benefit from permitted development rights as given by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended'. (The council do not say why)

the bit i do not understand:

'...The above views are expressed at officer level only, based on the information provided and/or made available. The view does not constitute in part or in full, a formal determination under Section 191 or 192 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 (as amended). Should you require such a determination, information on how to make an application cna be found on the following link to the relvant Council beb pages: http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/resident/p ... ications/'

I do not understand the term 'Determination' I have looked at this site, and have been into the Town and Country planing Act 1990 (as amended) to sectons 191 and 192. & i am not clear.

Do i need to apply for a certificate of Lawfulness (which i take to be under section 192 as its built) or just planning permission or both.

In anticipation of your continued and welcomed support and help thank you

Regards
:(
hobbyfarmer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:49 am

Hi hobbyfarmer,

Here is the wording of Part 2 Class A from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 - I've highlighted in blue and red the words relevant to your development:

PART 2
MINOR OPERATIONS

Class A

A. Permitted development

The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.

A.1 Development not permitted

Development is not permitted by Class A if—

(a)the height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed one metre above ground level;
(b)the height of any other gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed would exceed two metres above ground level;
(c)the height of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure maintained, improved or altered would, as a result of the development, exceed its former height or the height referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) as the height appropriate to it if erected or constructed, whichever is the greater; or
(d)it would involve development within the curtilage of, or to a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure surrounding, a listed building.


as you can see - the construction of a wall is granted planning permission by the GPDO unless it meets any of the criteria set out in A.1

Kind regards, Mac
edit: forgot to add that PART 2 is entitled 'MINOR OPERATIONS' and has nothing to do with development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse - that would be PART 1 which is entitled 'DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF DWELLINGHOUSE' - so the wall can only be considered a breach of planning law (and therefore justify the content of the letter regarding the wall itself) if it meets any of the criteria I've highlighted in red.
edit2: the advice I've given is based on the assumption that the 'Conservation Area' status does not affect the situation - this needs to be confirmed by checking the GPDO rights have not been removed for your particular conservation area by way of an 'Article 4' direction: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_Direction
Last edited by MacadamB53 on Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6070
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby hobbyfarmer » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:15 am

Hi MacadamB53

Thank you for your response, i intend to e-mail the PO stating your reponse and ask her to explain. Is there anything in the councils 'Unauthorised wall and back fill of soil constituting in the raising of the levels of the land, and an engineering operation at...' that could make the council state it does not benefit from permitted development rights as given by GPDO 1995?.
Could it be 'raising the levels of the land'? To me 'raising the levels of the land' is out of proportion for a raised landscaped flower bed: or do they see the private right of access for 2 other properties as a 'highway'. I really do not know.

Many thanks for all your support and help in, what to me, appears to be taking a sledge hammer to crack open a walnut whip.

regards

Hobbiefarmer
hobbyfarmer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:18 am

hobbyfarmer wrote:Hi MacadamB53

Thank you for your response, i intend to e-mail the PO stating your reponse and ask her to explain. Is there anything in the councils 'Unauthorised wall and back fill of soil constituting in the raising of the levels of the land, and an engineering operation at...' that could make the council state it does not benefit from permitted development rights as given by GPDO 1995?.
Could it be 'raising the levels of the land'? To me 'raising the levels of the land' is out of proportion for a raised landscaped flower bed: or do they see the private right of access for 2 other properties as a 'highway'. I really do not know.

Many thanks for all your support and help in, what to me, appears to be taking a sledge hammer to crack open a walnut whip.

regards

Hobbiefarmer

Hi hobbyfarmer,

I think my edit on my last posting came in after you posted your reply - the only reason I can see for the wall not qualifying for planning permission under the GPDO is if the rights set out in the GPDO have been restricted/removed by an 'Article 4' direction being made by the Local Authority (see link to wikipedia I added in my edit)
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6070
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby hobbyfarmer » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:52 am

Hi MacadamB53

yes, i didn't get the edits that you had added when i sent the last post.

I am looking on-line to see if i can find anything to say if they have removed permitted development rights.
However, i would hazard a guess that they have not removed this due to the amount of fullboard fences that adorn the conservation area, which from reading the councils conservation officers reports on a lot of planning applications, they are not happy with but cannot do anything about as they are at the permitted 1.8mtre height; even those right on the roadside.

I will endeavour to find out, but most likely, if i can't find anything, will ask the PO

Regards
Hobbiefarmer
hobbyfarmer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby ukmicky » Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:53 pm

If you go on the the council website it will show all the conservation areas and if it comes under the article 4 restrictions
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: wall proximity to cobb wall

Postby hobbyfarmer » Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:36 pm

ukmicky wrote:If you go on the the council website it will show all the conservation areas and if it comes under the article 4 restrictions


thank you, found relevant bit. We do not appear to be under the Article 4 restriction.

feeling a bit happier now :)

Regards

Hobbiefarmer
hobbyfarmer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:13 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Previous

Return to Walls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron