Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:25 pm

Hi Treeman,

The high hedge legislation you refer to is part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and on first reading I cannot see reference to replacing hedges with fences.

It seems far more to do with domestic disputes about the impact a "high hedge" is having on nearby neighbours enjoyment of their own land.

I'm probably just being a bit dim (I've got a terrible head cold at the mo).

I'll re-read. Here's a link btw:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/38/part/8

Kind regards
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.
 

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby TO » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:43 pm

Hi

MacadamB53 wrote: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...
Don't. Passing of opinion as fact is common practice on this forum. However, a clue to what posters want is in the title of the forum. Before passing off opinion as fact, or the law, you should think about the consequences. What if the poster took your opinion that it is acceptable to build a fence several metres tall, and then having paid for it was faced with the costs of a planning application, appeal, removal and replacement.

MacadamB53 wrote: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.
If the legislation included everything that is not applicable to it then it would be a rather large tome, as would be every piece of legislation.

MacadamB53 wrote:Can you quantify your anecdote about folk coming a cropper to put it into context.
It's not anectodal, it can be evidenced. If you want to quantify it then either ask all the local planniung authorities how many such cases they have had, or go to the Planning Inspectorate and ask how many appeals they have dealt with. You could go on their web site and start trawling through the appeal decisions and find out for yourself.

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 2:15 pm

Hi TO,

I'm going to make this very clear - I have only shared my opinion and have made it clear it is only an opinion.

You rather carefully chose not to quote this part of my last post. :?

I am not claiming I am somehow qualified to give advice or that my opinion carries more weight than others. My only reference to the law is quoting what, in the eyes of the law, is a fence - a hedge is a fence.

I am now reading through the legislation Treeman has kindly pointed me towards so that I can reassess my opinion, which I think is sensible given the wave of contrary opinion I've been met with on this particular post. I'm sure you can understand people might not want to just accept the opinions of others (some might say passed off as fact) without asking for clarification of where they got their different view from....

To the actual purpose of this thread - the OP wants to carry out an alteration to his "hedge" (or existing fence which is a hedge as I would have it) by replacing it with a 3-4ft wooden fence. I say go ahead, if he's sure about the impact (privacy/noise). He's also mentioned seeing many +2m fences adjoining the highway in his vicinity so maybe some good (unqualified) advice might be for him to knock on a few of their doors and see if any action was taken by the local planning office...

Kind regards, Mac
Last edited by MacadamB53 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby despair » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:17 pm

Given the amount of work involved in removing the laurels and replacing with a fence I would have thought a good tree surgeon could rapidly and radically reduce the whole hedge both in height and width so that it shoots through and becomes maneagable again
despair
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:06 pm

Just called my local planning office and had a very nice chat.

Seems pinkie et al are correct as far as my LA are concerned.

My opinion has changed - you need to gain pp before you replace a +1m hedge which adjoins the highway, otherwise you might receive remedial notice from your LA if they've received a complaint.

Hope that is good enough to pass the test :D

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

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby Treeman » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:30 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Treeman,

The high hedge legislation you refer to is part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and on first reading I cannot see reference to replacing hedges with fences.

It seems far more to do with domestic disputes about the impact a "high hedge" is having on nearby neighbours enjoyment of their own land.

I'm probably just being a bit dim (I've got a terrible head cold at the mo).

I'll re-read. Here's a link btw:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/38/part/8

Kind regards



The point I was making was that if hedges fell under the remit of the Town and Country Planning Act there would be no need for the HH legislation QED hedges don't fall under TCPA.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:09 pm

Hi Treeman,

Thanks for sharing the HH link and I understand the legislation - it just didn't challenge my OLD opinion :wink:

I don't think the HH part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act was introduced because "hedges don't fall under the TCPA" (which is quite a catch all statement btw).

The legislators describe it as "an Act to make provision in connection with anti-social behaviour" 'QED' folk with 'high hedges' were being anti-social.

The purpose of the HH part of that Act is far removed from the purpose of this thread -

HH Q. can my LA do anything if I complain to them about the height of my neighbour's hedge? A. Yes - but the hedge must qualify as a 'high hedge' and you must have evidence the hedge is adversely affecting your enjoyment of your own land.

OP Q. can I alter my existing 13ft hedge adjoining the highway by replacing it with a 3-4ft wooden fence? A. Yes - and if you want to avoid the possibility of being given remedial notice from your local authority (which would only be given if they'd received a valid complaint) then you'd best get planning consent first. Otherwise you takes your chances...

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

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby Brainsey » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:42 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:OP Q. can I alter my existing 13ft hedge adjoining the highway by replacing it with a 3-4ft wooden fence?

A. Yes; and if you restrict the fence height to a maximum of 1 metre you will not need to apply for planning permission. If you want to erect a fence a fence that is higher than 1 metre then you will need to apply for planning permission. In the latter case gaining PP may be unlikely so check with your LPA first as if you require a hedge/fence of such height it would be simpler to just keep and maintain the hedge.
Brainsey
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:03 pm

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby Treeman » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:53 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Treeman,

Thanks for sharing the HH link and I understand the legislation - it just didn't challenge my OLD opinion :wink:

I don't think the HH part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act was introduced because "hedges don't fall under the TCPA" (which is quite a catch all statement btw).

The legislators describe it as "an Act to make provision in connection with anti-social behaviour" 'QED' folk with 'high hedges' were being anti-social.

The purpose of the HH part of that Act is far removed from the purpose of this thread -

HH Q. can my LA do anything if I complain to them about the height of my neighbour's hedge? A. Yes - but the hedge must qualify as a 'high hedge' and you must have evidence the hedge is adversely affecting your enjoyment of your own land.

OP Q. can I alter my existing 13ft hedge adjoining the highway by replacing it with a 3-4ft wooden fence? A. Yes - and if you want to avoid the possibility of being given remedial notice from your local authority (which would only be given if they'd received a valid complaint) then you'd best get planning consent first. Otherwise you takes your chances...

Kind regards, Mac



Ignore the description of the act. The HH legislation was in danger of running out of time as a stand alone legislation so it was tacked on the back of the ASBO.

The simple fact is that if hedges could have been dealt with by another legislation there would have been no need for the HH legislation so hedges definitely don't come under the TCPA.
Treeman
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:02 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:16 pm

Hi Brainsey,

Thanks for rewording my post. However the pedant in me must point out that PP is not NEEDED at all. There would be nothing to stop you building a 1.1m high wall without getting PP. You'd just be opening yourself up to the possibility of receiving an enforcement notice from your LA (if they've received a complaint).

Furthermore:

"Carrying out development without planning consent is not a criminal offence. However, failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence. An enforcement notice is a notice requiring compliance with planning consent. If the notice is upheld, the penalty for failure to comply is a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment. Enforcement action is discretionary and local planning authorities are told to act proportionally in responding to suspected breaches of planning control."

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 7:24 pm

Hi

MacadamB53 wrote:Thanks for sharing the HH link and I understand the legislation - it just didn't challenge my OLD opinion
It wouldn't would it. But if hedges were not allowed to be more than 1m adjacent a road, or 2m on other boundaries why would you need separate legislation. You need it because you can grow a hedge to any height you like.

MacadamB53 wrote:The legislators describe it as "an Act to make provision in connection with anti-social behaviour" 'QED' folk with 'high hedges' were being anti-social.
Factually incorrect. The reason it is part of the Anti-social behaviour Act is that the Act was a convenient bit of legislation going through Parliament at that time to which the high hedges legislation could be attached. That it is attached to the Anti-social behaviour Act proves nothing, other than the desire of the government of the day to get something on high hedges onto the statute books.

MacadamB53 wrote:Just called my local planning office and had a very nice chat. Seems pinkie et al are correct as far as my LA are concerned.
Just your LA?

MacadamB53 wrote:My opinion has changed - you need to gain pp before you replace a +1m hedge which adjoins the highway, otherwise you might receive remedial notice from your LA if they've received a complaint.
Remedial Notice? What you mean is Enforcement Notice, and they don't need to receive a complaint before they can issue one.

To

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

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby Brainsey » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:42 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi Brainsey,
Thanks for rewording my post. However the pedant in me must point out that PP is not NEEDED at all. There would be nothing to stop you building a 1.1m high wall without getting PP. You'd just be opening yourself up to the possibility of receiving an enforcement notice from your LA (if they've received a complaint).

I didn't reword your post, I simply answered the OP's question in a format similar to your post.

Additionally, the wording of my reply credits the OP with enough common sense not to do anything that would expose him to the prospect of LPA enforcement action (without a complaint).

Has anyone else noticed that the OP hasn't come back? Can't think why. :roll:
Brainsey
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:03 pm

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:20 am

pinkie,

Please refer to the message I've added to my first post on this thread which flags up to disregard my contribution. If I could remove my useless posts I would do that also.

Kind regards and thanks for bearing with an idiot, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6023
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby despair » Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:31 am

I suggest an email to admin@gardenlaw.co.uk is in order asking that they remove postings your unhappy about
despair
 
Posts: 16040
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: Removing Laurel and replacing with fencing...

Postby MacadamB53 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:53 am

thanks despair,

Just sent

"Hi admin,

Can I request the removal of my own posts from the above thread.

I think they might confuse the reader and they've been given far too much misplaced emphasis by some other posters which takes the thread off on a tangent to which I contributed.

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 1 guest