Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby arborlad » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:21 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi pinkie,

I like to think I haven't just formed my opinion in blind ignorance :oops: but can not recollect reading any legislation as you mention. Could you post a link please? (not just to the portal...)

Kind regards, Mac



The Planning Portal that Pinkie has linked to, is quite easy to understand, however, if you find something there that supports your contention - then please post it.............if you find something you don't understand - then post that also.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

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: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby mugwump » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:41 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi pinkie,

Let's not dwell on this any further - there's no mention of 'hedge' in the available guidance and you've kindly shared your knowledge that 'hedge' is distinguished from all other types of 'wall' in some piece of legislation.

Please post a link and I'll get reading :wink:

Kind regards, Mac
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/fenceswallsgates/

You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate

You will not need to apply for planning permission to take down a fence, wall,or gate, or to alter, maintain or improve an existing fence, wall or gate

You will not need to apply for planning permission to take down a fence, wall,or gate, or to alter, maintain or improve an existing fence, wall or gate


Hedges are traeted differently to fences, walls and gates so is distuinguished from them
mugwump
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:25 pm

Hi mugwump,

I notice you've quoted from the guidance apart from the point we're disagreeing on which is just your own wording.

If you re-read the guidance with the understanding that a 'wall' is any permanent barrier you might agree that hedges are allowed for already in the guidance. Which is why there isn't any "What about hedges?" section in the guidance.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:00 pm

Hi pinkie,

Thanks for the link. However, this takes me to a section about planting hedges and trees NOT replacing an existing hedge with a wall made from alternative materials.

Where's the link to the legislation you mentioned in a previous post?

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:15 pm

Hi pinkie,

If you're expecting any more from me to validate my opinion then you may have to wait a while (just give me some time).

I though, have only stated an opinion. I haven't made reference to legislation to imply my view carries more weight.

I've trawled the portal without any luck (how hard can they make it to find such a frequently required document...) so please be forthcoming with a link or the title of the legislation.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:31 pm

Hi pinkie,

Thank you for your patience. I suppose we will all also have to wait for the title of the legislation you're privy to?

What an exceptionally odd way you choose to offer advice...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:59 pm

Hi pinkie,

Here's the definition for a fence from the 4th Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England (2002), Volume 4(1), ¶947:

"Although fences are frequently used to mark the situation of boundaries, nonetheless they are primarily guards against intrusion, or barriers to prevent persons or animals from straying out, and therefore in this sense the term includes not only hedges, banks and walls, but also ditches."

And from The Law of Party Walls and Fences:

"Fences ... are ... guards against intrusion. A fence may consist of almost any kind of enclosure or division but a hedge, ditch, bank or wall will be most commonly found to answer that term."

I hope that, whilst you might choose to question their relevance, you can now appreciate why some folks reading the permitted development guidance will not assume the omission of the word 'hedge' is of any importance.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:20 pm

Hi pinkie,

I meant no offence and certainly didn't intend on writing in an uncivil tone.

Shame though it is, I also respect your decision not to 'engage' with me as we're all entitled to make such decisions.

I'm sure if we held a face-to-face conversation we'd get along fine.

Hi OP,

I'll post a link to the 'hedge' legislation as soon as I find it so you can make a more informed decision...

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:00 am

Thanks nothingtodowithme,

This may sound naive but I think almost all contributors on this forum are decent folk trying to help if they can.

I must have chosen to phrase my point in such a way that pinkie took exception. Hey-ho

(A bit rich really when after reading "here's the guide, oh, and hedges are different btw." I just asked for further clarification and got "somewhere else.... ....I think")

As to the OP, I'll see if I can find the 'hedge' legislation for him because I'm of the opinion the guidance pinkie repeatedly linked to on the planning portal is what must have been deemed sufficient to answer FAQs on the subject. Otherwise local planning offices would have to be consulted each and every time someone was thinking of grubbing up a hedgerow and replacing it with an eg. wooden fence. Farcical idea - surely they'd sooner add an extra bullet to the guide (just as mugwump had to with his pasting of the guide :wink: )

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby arborlad » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:20 am

MacadamB53 wrote: Otherwise local planning offices would have to be consulted each and every time someone was thinking of grubbing up a hedgerow and replacing it with an eg. wooden fence. Farcical idea - surely they'd sooner add an extra bullet to the guide.

Kind regards, Mac


They did: You do not need planning permission for hedges taken from the Planning Portal as linked to by Pinkie, who is correct.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people
arborlad
 
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:44 am

arborlad wrote:
MacadamB53 wrote: Otherwise local planning offices would have to be consulted each and every time someone was thinking of grubbing up a hedgerow and replacing it with an eg. wooden fence. Farcical idea - surely they'd sooner add an extra bullet to the guide.

Kind regards, Mac


They did: You do not need planning permission for hedges taken from the Planning Portal as linked to by Pinkie, who is correct.


Hi arborlad,

It would appear that we've got our wires crossed at some point.

I am not "contesting" the guide at all. I understand the guide.

I am seeking clarification from pinkie/mugwump/your good self as to where you've read anything which would cause the reader come to the conclusion you all share -
that REPLACING a +2m hedge with a fence of equal height is not permitted development.

As an example here's a comment from pinkie:

The Planning Portal does not distinguish whether a fence is a new fence or a replacement


Let's see what the guide does have to say:

on the subject of new fences -

"You will need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect or add to a fence, wall or gate"

and on the subject of replacements -

"You will not need to apply for planning permission to take down a fence, wall,or gate, or to alter, maintain or improve an existing fence, wall or gate (no matter how high) if you don't increase its height"

Your reference to the mention of hedges in the guide is about it being permitted to plant a hedge - and I'm sure you already know this has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of this post.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby TO » Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:32 am

Hi

Putting aside the issue of bad advice, that being what you think it should be and passing it off as fact...

General Permitted Development
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;

You will note hedges aren't mentioned. That's because in planning terms they are not walls, fences, or development they are hedges and outwith the scope of the planning legislation. There are numerous examples of people who have removed 2m+high hedges replaced them with 2m fences next to a road, and fallen foul of the legislation. They all think the same, that it is ok because the hedge was higher, always the same old excuse, but it never cuts it either with the local planning authority, or the Planning Inspectorate at appeal.

Growing a hedge is no more development than growing a rose, or a lawn.

TO
TO
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:09 am

Hi TO,

I take exception to the following:

Putting aside the issue of bad advice, that being what you think it should be and passing it off as fact...


I for one have made it very clear my advice is based on opinion only and have urged other posters with a contrary view to provide evidence so I can reconsider my opinion.

The pasting of the MINOR OPERATIONS clearly states:

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


and

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.....
(b)the height of any other gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed would exceed two metres.....
(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;


I have noted hedges aren't mentioned. I think we all have :wink:

That's because in planning terms they are not walls, fences, or development they are hedges and outwith the scope of the planning legislation.


Please tell me where you found this information as it is the crux of the issue.

Can you quantify your anecdote about folk coming a cropper to put it into context.

Kind regards, Martin
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby Treeman » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:56 am

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi TO,

I take exception to the following:

Putting aside the issue of bad advice, that being what you think it should be and passing it off as fact...


I for one have made it very clear my advice is based on opinion only and have urged other posters with a contrary view to provide evidence so I can reconsider my opinion.

The pasting of the MINOR OPERATIONS clearly states:

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


and

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.....
(b)the height of any other gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed would exceed two metres.....
(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;


I have noted hedges aren't mentioned. I think we all have :wink:

That's because in planning terms they are not walls, fences, or development they are hedges and outwith the scope of the planning legislation.


Please tell me where you found this information as it is the crux of the issue.

Can you quantify your anecdote about folk coming a cropper to put it into context.

Kind regards, Martin


You are backing a looser on this one, hedges aren't enforceable under planning legislation, if they were there would have been no need for the high hedges legislation.

If you want examples there are many postings on here from people that have fallen foul of just that.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:55 pm

Thanks Treeman,

That was all I was wanting.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

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.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Hedges

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests