A dropped kerb in Hill Head has been at the centre of a planning row between two councils.

Planning chiefs in Fareham have criticised Hampshire County Council for ‘making a right mess’ as it gave contradictory opinions to a dropped kerb application.

It has left Fareham Borough Council’s planning committee members in ‘conflict’ with the county council after ignoring its recommendation to throw out a homeowner’s plans.

The county council had given a licence for a house in Hill Head to have a dropped kerb, but when it came to the homeowner asking the borough council for permission to install it and rip out a hedge, issues were raised.

READ MORE: The Romsey School is holding classes of up to '150 pupils'

Daily Echo: 53 Old Raod Drop Kerb Plan Fareham

Despite meeting the eight criteria for the successful dropped kerb application, the county council contradicted itself as it said visibility was too poor and potentially dangerous for the driveway to actually be installed.

When making a decision on whether Angela Burd, of 53 Old Street, could remove the hedge to allow two cars to park outside her home, the committee was told by planning officer Richard Wright that the two issues were character and appearance of the area and highway safety.

The house is on the side of the road that is deemed ‘rural’ and the other side is said to be urban by planning officers. They said this was important to consider when trying to understand this application as the appearance on one side of the road is leafy and the other has driveways and houses closer together.

After agreeing to the dropped kerb, when Hampshire County Council was consulted on this application as the highways authority it said visibility from the drive would be limited and cars using it could “cause danger and inconvenience to other highway users”.

Documents said visibility to the south of the access was “significantly reduced” to below the required standard by the adjoining properties’ boundary hedge.

“A driver of an emerging vehicle will not be able to see an oncoming vehicle until the exiting vehicle has significantly protruded into the carriageway, which would be detrimental to highway safety,” it added.

“By allowing vehicular access to the front of the property, it will restrict access to other properties on the eastern side of the road and cause safety issues for pedestrians and road users.”

Councillor Nick Walker said: “From my point of view, Hampshire have made a right mess. They’ve obviously got one guy in a desk there and one in a desk there and they didn’t even talk to each other.

“They’ve given permission for a drop kerb and then someone else has come along and had the cheek to say I don’t think so. It puts us in an awful dilemma. It’s a no-through road and it doesn’t go anywhere.”

The planning officer did point out that it is a through road for cyclists.

Councillor David Foot (Con, Fareham North West) said playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and from the officer’s point side, the visibility was poor and short of the 43-metre requirement.

Councillor Susan Walker (Con, Portchester West) said: “I don’t have much faith in Hampshire County Council because they have just got the book out and said it’s got to be 43 metres.

“She said common sense needs to be applied. The hedge has gone, it’s not a busy road. It is unfair for one house not to have access when all the houses along the road find access difficult.”

Objections from neighbours were also raised about safety and visibility.

Councillor Connie Hockley (Con, Titchfield) said: ”I don’t have a lot of faith in many of the recommendations that come out of Hampshire Highways. Many times, we’ve looked at what they have said and asked ‘have they been down, have they had a look?’.”

On making the final decision, the lawyer said they would have to arrive at a view that there is no adverse impact on highway safety as part of the council’s commitment to the local Fareham plan policy while in the “teeth from an objection from the highways authority”.

Councillor Ian Bastable (Con, Park Gate) said that he wasn’t prepared to go against the county council’s recommendation because of safety. After the vote, he said: “Going against Hampshire is very brave.”

The committee approved the plans, against the recommendation of officers and the county council.