Family who built unpopular 6ft fence without permission win battle to keep it
by Jonathon Hill · Wales OnlineA man has accused a council’s planning department of unfairly approving his neighbour’s plans to build a 1.8m high fence near his home. Fred Tucker, 84, of Greenfield Terrace in Cwmparc, complained to Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council last year after the family which lives opposite him built a particularly high fence around a grassy area next to his house.
The family have never owned the land which is now inside the boundary fence, but say they have leased the land from the council since January 2017. While they claim they had permission to use the land, they had no formal planning permission for a garden area or to erect the fence when they did so last year.
Up to then the family were using the area to park vehicles, while Fred said he would sometimes use the land to turn his caravan around. But last year the family built the fence around the modest section of land in order to extend their garden.
READ MORE: Residents take down fences after being threatened with court action
After they began building the fence Fred said he approached them and asked if they’d received planning permission for the fence and permission to begin using the land as a garden area. It transpired no formal planning permission had been given, although the family maintain they had previously received verbal agreement to use the area for gardening purposes and they claim they'd been incorrectly informed by someone working for the council that they didn't need planning permission for the fence. Fred then said he’d complain to the council in order to have the fence taken down or reduced to a metre in height.
If a permanent structure such as a wall or a fence is on a highway and is more than a metre in height it requires planning permission to be constructed, delivered through a formal planning process. A council doesn't usually act on particularly high fences, but if a complaint is made over the height of a fence a local authority is obliged to investigate, usually resulting in a homeowner having to apply for planning permission for the fence retrospectively.
The family was told they would have to apply retrospectively and has unusually won the case to keep the fence as it is. They have also won approval for change of use to use the area as a second garden. Fred said the planning result has left him baffled, adding that he had sent the council a document signed by 54 neighbours who objected to the plans, but Fred said his efforts “made no difference”.
Often, following a complaint from a neighbour about a fence more than a metre in height a homeowner would be forced to modify their fence, as was the case in Gelligaer in Caerphilly borough when Mark Roberts had to take his fence down because the council felt it wasn't in keeping with the area, and in Lliswerry in Newport where a number of residents had to modify their fences and boundary walls because they were also deemed too high and not in keeping. Earlier this month a woman in New Inn, Pontypool, was ordered to cut her two-metre fence down too because it wasn't in keeping with the surrounding area and posed a risk to motorists.
But Fred said in his case his lane was not considered a typical highway by the council's planning department and was instead considered a gully. "The fence is on a highway, so legally the fence should only be up to one metre,” Fred claimed. “But it is well over one metre in height. In fact, it's 1.8m in height and it obstructs my view and is a danger, in my opinion, for motorists, pedestrians and residents coming around the bend.
“When have you ever heard of a person putting up a fence that tall and the council doing nothing about it after neighbours complain? The council says it's a gully and not a proper highway. So what makes a highway? Recycling lorries come down here. I've been told by separate councillors that this road is definitely a highway. This is a road which is used every day by residents who live here.
“54 people complained about the fence and yet nothing has been done. The land is not their land. The land belongs to the council. I used to use the area to turn around my caravan. Now I have to have my caravan in storage because I can't drive it up here with that fence up.
"You can't see cars coming down the hill around the corner. It also completely blocks my view from my drive and my window. I used to watch for the bus at the top of the street and I'd wave at the driver and he'd wait for me. I can't do that anymore.
"We had a meeting and during the planning meeting I was speaking and I got cut off. Then all I heard as: 'Accepted, accepted, accepted.' To me it's wrong. I've had a nice view of the hills for 40 years. Now I look at that fence."
In the council's planning report the highways officer noted: "There is slight concern that the proposed close-boarded fence will restrict forward vision of vehicles travelling between the turning area of Park Road and Greenfield Terrace which is a single width carriageway. However, taking into consideration slow vehicles speeds and that Manual for Streets states obstructions to forward visibility can help reduce speed of oncoming vehicles which is in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety. The proposed is not envisaged to have any significant impact on highway or pedestrian safety and therefore is considered acceptable."
The family who erected the fence said: "What the planning report won’t tell you is that we asked the council as to whether we could enclose the land without the need for planning permission. We were told in writing that consent wasn’t needed and so we proceeded to erect good quality fencing to enclose the land to become a play area for our young daughter.
"Mr Tucker then kicked up a fuss with the council that the land didn’t have planning consent. We then had a meeting with planning enforcement and he informed us very apologetically we did actually need planning consent which we attended to immediately. The process took a long time and that was when Mr Tucker put up signs to attempt to indimidate us.
"My husband suffered a brain injury five years ago and this land has been a godsend in his recovery. We have done everything in the proper manner to occupy and use the land. Due to the objections made it was taken to panel where they addressed all Mr Tucker's concerns and voted unanimously in our favour. They felt it was a straight forward case as the fence was in keeping with the environment and highway were happy that it was safe." The family added that Greenfield Terrace cannot be considered a "proper road" as few residents use the road.
A spokesperson for the council said: “The council can confirm it is the owner of the land in question and has leased it for use as a private garden curtilage. In January 2024 the planning and development committee considered an application to change the use of land to a garden curtilage, which included installing a 1.8m fence.
“Officers recommended the application for approval as the proposal was typical of such residential areas, was considered acceptable in visual terms, and was deemed to have no adverse impact upon pedestrian and highway safety. A number of objections were made against the application including by a local resident who spoke in the planning meeting. Having considered all relevant material planning considerations, members of the planning and development committee resolved to approve the application.”