Issue - meetings

            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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161