®Planning appeal decision
36 Medway Avenue, Yalding, MAIDSTONE, ME18 6JN
We have had a 6ft fence erected at part of the boundary of our property to replace a hedge that according to KCC didn't comply with their regulations, As it was taking over too much of the footpath. After consulting professionals it was apparent that the hedge could not be cut back to the boundary line as being Ivy it would have just fallen over leaving us with no security to our property. We live on the end of the street with a wrap around garden that is in use by our children and pets all the time which is why we require the fence to allow them to stay safe whilst enjoying their own garden. KCC were informed of our plan to replace the hedge with a fence and at no point advised that we had to consider height due to its position or else I would not have taken the
- Authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Appeal type
- householder · Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- other · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Gethin T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
What decided it
The variety of boundary treatments in the locality, including similar close board fencing of comparable height nearby, combined with the softening effect of visible trees and landscaping, means the fence does not read as out of character with its surroundings.
Plan policies cited: Policy DM1, Policy DM9
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.