Gentleman, and Ladies (as appropriate).
Thank you for your considered responses.
After 12-14 hours of research i think I have arrived an answers that are are as precise as the determinations in planning law, made by the Secretary of State, and Courts describe.
Here is a link to the resources used by planning authorities and others:http://www.planningresource.co.uk/artic ... ection-434
Its not so good news for me.
1. The 'short fence behind the tall fence' trick suggested by one poster has been dismissed as subservient in several appeals.
2. Being adjacent to a highway does not mean directly abutting it, but can be upto several metres way, the issue being one of providing separation. Its is not a clear cut issue, as flower beds on a verge can constitute a feature in their own right, and alternatively a fence further than an arms length from the road has been deemed not adjacent. Matters of fact and degree.
3. The issue of visibility splays also impinges, if a fence impedes the required visibility from an access, it may be refused.
4. As a more recent poster mentioned, fences are dealt with according to function, wherever they are i.e. a 2m fence around a tennis court might be acceptable as it would be deemed an enclosure, but in other area, not.
Relevant section is pasted below from the link.
I thank you all for your considerate and helpful comments.Class A, part 2, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 provides that a means of enclosure "erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic" is not permitted where it would exceed 1m above ground level. The term "adjacent" is not defined. However, I think that the height limit may stem from the condition that is often applied to prevent visual obstructions of more than 1m in height within a visibility splay. So it would seem reasonable that a means of enclosure exceeding 1m in height and located more than 2.4m back from the edge of the highway should not be considered "adjacent". What is your advice? Presumably a hedge exceeding 1m in height would not be considered "erected or constructed"? JW.
As you say, "adjacent" is not defined in the Order. There is no guidance on how near a fence needs to be to the highway for it to be considered "adjacent". This is a matter of fact and degree and has been the subject of various appeals, as discussed in Development Control Practice 12.31. All that is clear is that a wall or fence does not have to touch the edge of a highway to be considered adjacent. It may be some distance back provided it is close enough to maintain the perceived function of forming a boundary between a highway and a property. Distances of up to 6m have been held to be adjacent. Neither is there any guidance on what constitutes the edge of a highway for this purpose. While part 6, schedule 2 on the operation of the 25m rule refers to the metalled part of any road, inspectors have ruled that a highway can include grass verges. The primary purpose behind the limitation is clearly to safeguard satisfactory sightlines at junctions. Where sightlines are not affected by the means of enclosure, it could be argued that the structure should be treated as permitted development if it is less than 2m high. As hedges are not development, they are beyond the scope of the Order. PM.