Class A, Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO permitted walls up to 1m in height constructed adjacent to the highway and 2m in other cases. The matter in dispute was whether the 1.8m to 2m walls were adjacent to the highway. The appellant relied on the setback from the pavement edge and the planted strip on the road side of the wall.
The inspector explained that the position established through the courts was that the word "adjacent" did not mean that the fence had to be abutting or touching the highway. The leading case which established this authority was Simmonds v SSE and Rochdale MDC [1981]. In that case the fence was set back from the site boundary and pavement by just over 1m. The minimum distance of the set back of the front wall in the appeal case was said by the appellant to be about 1.16m which, the inspector noted, was very similar to the Rochdale situation. It increased to about 1.4m but it was necessary to consider the development as a whole. He found that the front wall had been erected adjacent to the highway in the accepted legal sense.
The side walls were no more than 2m in height and the appellant asserted that they did not require planning permission. The inspector considered, however, that they were part and parcel of a single act of development. He ruled that the development in its entirety amounted to a breach of planning control.
Finding that the walls had caused material harm to the street scene and highway safety, the inspector upheld the enforcement notice requiring their removal.
Inspector Nicholas Freeman; Written representations
