Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to include the removal of permitted development rights and requiring planting and retention of hedge of appropriate species on the outside of the fence. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21^st March 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and advised that this was a retrospective application as the fence had already been erected.  

            Mr. R. Grace, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the two issues for consideration were the change of use to a garden area which he felt was misleading as paragraph 7.02 implied that the applicant had changed the use from countryside to garden; the area had always been garden even though it had not previously been maintained as such by the previous owner.  He had not sought prior planning permission from the Council when purchasing the land adjacent to his property as when it was sold by the Council to the previous owner of the property as garden, he had applied for planning permission for three detached dwellings but as outline permission had not been approved, the area had remained as garden.  The land registry documents from when he purchased the land in 2015 indicated that a fence should be erected on the land.  The second issue was the fence which had been suggested would have a detrimental impact on the area which Mr. Grace also felt was confusing as both this property and the next door property had been granted permission for a two metre fence to secure their boundary.  It was recommended that the fence would need to be moved back one metre and plant a hedge although it was already two metres from the highway.  He commented that the two metre rule was not published by theCouncil although many other Councils had published guidelines on the issue.  He was willing to plant a hedge in front of the fence if appearance was the issue and referred to an issue in 2012 where a car crashed through the fence and into his property. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the report suggested that the fence could remain if appropriate hedging was planted in front of it.  In referring to the site history, Councillor Derek Butler spoke of a similar application that had been refused but the fence had been erected by the applicant.  He said that there should be an open aspect to the area and that if the application was refused, then the fence would need to be removed. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd sought clarification on whether the applicant owned the land up to the boundary as a streetlight was situated on the area.  He suggested that the planting of other hedging in front of the fence could reduce its impact.  Councillor Gareth Roberts spoke of the area and said that there were properties across the road which had fences and hedges higher than what was in place on this site and added that this fence would make the garden area a safer place for the applicant’s children to play in.  He felt that if the application was refused, and appealed by the applicant, then considerable costs could be awarded against the Council.  Councillor Ian Dunbar spoke on behalf of the Local Member, Councillor Christine Jones and summarised her comments as follows:-

‘The fence provided a safety and sound barrier from the adjacent A548 and quick growing conifers could be planted in front of it which would make the fencing acceptable and not harmful to the area.’ 

            Councillor Mike Peers commented on the fence at a nearby derelict site and said that a fence of this size was required because of the size of the garden.  He suggested that the fence could be painted green to reduce the impact on the area and added that the applicant had indicated that he was willing to put planting in front of the fence.  He sought clarification on the issue of the hedge and fence and said that the fence protected the applicant’s property. 

            In response, the Development Manager said that this site was in the open countryside and he agreed that the fence might be appropriate in an urban setting but the application before Members also sought the change of use of the area behind the fence to garden area.  Officers were not overly concerned about this aspect if the boundary was appropriate for the open countryside.  He said that if Members were mindful to approve the application then they could consider the inclusion of a condition to provide planting in front of the fence. 

            Councillor Peers sought clarification of the point raised by the applicant that the land had been purchased from the Council for garden use.  The Development Manager said that the fact that the application included the change of use suggested that the change of use had not already been agreed.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that the applicant had indicated that the fence was required because of safety concerns but following this there was a material consideration which Members had to take into account which was whether it was appropriate to use the land as garden. 

            Councillor Butler reiterated his earlier comments that the previous application for a fence had been refused but it was erected by the applicant without permission.  He sought clarification on whether the land was in the ownership of the applicant or the Council.  The officer confirmed that the strip of land had been sold to the applicant by the Council but not for use as a garden. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was LOST.  The Housing & Planning Solicitor suggested that delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to approve conditions and to determine whether there was a need for a Section 106 obligation to be attached to the permission.  Councillor Richard Jones suggested that permitted development rights could be removed and the fence be approved with appropriate hedging or screening planted in front of it.  On being put to the vote, this proposal was CARRIED.        

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to include the removal of permitted development rights and requiring planting and retention of hedge of appropriate species on the outside of the fence.