Agenda item

Change of use of open space to garden.

The Planning Officer, Louisa Ollivere, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.

The Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for change of use from open space to garden and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer noted the application was part-retrospective and was included proposed 1.2m high close boarded fencing along the front and side, with 2m high fencing at the rear.  Members were referred to the condition of the land in question.

It was explained that the Local Member, Councillor W Stelling had requested the application to be considered by Committee, with concerns in relation to potential for any fencing to create an alleyway which could lead to anti-social behaviour. 

The Planning Officer noted that there had been 15 objections received from members of the public with the main objections relating to: the application being retrospective; loss of open space; the creation of an alleyway; and the effect on the public right of way.

The Committee were informed that the land was of limited use as open space, and saved policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan noted no need to retain such open space, and was consistent with the NPPF.  The Planning Officer noted limited impact in terms of the fencing, with the applicant agreeing to a 1.2m fencing height along the footpath.  Members were advised that fencing at a nearby property was under permitted development.  The Planning Officer concluded by noting that the NPPF stated that applications should be approved where there were no reasons against, without delay.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and asked Mrs S Mower to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs S Mower thanked the Chairman and Committee and noted she was speaking on behalf of residents in respect of this change of use application.  She explained that the fencing along the public footpath was a concern, creating an alleyway and with fencing already in the vicinity at 2m in height.  She noted her young daughter and other often used this footpath, as did dog walkers accessing the fields to the rear of Ridley Terrace.  It was added that if the open aspect along the footpath was lost, then residents would not feel safe and there would be the opportunity for anti-social behaviour and crime, the footpath not being lit.  Mrs S Mower noted the potential for increased dog fouling if the open aspect was lost.  She added that the height was being proposed as being the same as No.13 and that residents felt that this would create an alleyway and a dumping ground.

Mrs S Mower explained that the applicant had place paving stones at the site and that if the 1.2m fence followed these stones, this would retain the open aspect along the footpath.  Mrs S Mower concluded by noted that it was felt that a 0.60m fence would be acceptable, and while there were some 1.2m fences at some properties, there were no 2m fences.

The Planning Officer noted that at 1.2m, there would still be an ability to view over this height.

The Committee Services Officer noted that Councillor W Stelling had been in contact to say he was unable to attend the meeting of the Committee, however, he wished to support the comments of Mrs S Mower in relation to this application.

Councillor J Robinson entered the meeting at 1.57pm

The Chairman noted Councillor J Robinson would not take part in the debate or decision making on this application.  He asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor A Shield asked whether the application was in respect of acquisition of land, asking if it was after a period of 12 years.  The Planning Officer noted the land was in unknown ownership and the Solicitor - Planning and Development confirmed that the Member was correct about the timescale for adverse possession, however land ownership issues were not relevant in terms of planning matters.

Councillor A Shield noted the concerns raised by Councillor W Stelling and the residents and noted NPPF part 8 noted contribution to healthy communities and suggested that the Police be contacted as regards potential anti-social behaviour issues.  He added that residents had suggested a height of 0.60m and asked why 1.2m was being set out.  The Planning Officer noted that the 1.2m height was the same as that at the property, and that 0.60m fencing would not be in keeping with this.  Councillor A Shield noted that the front had an open vista, with 1.2m being acceptable, however, the side would be enclosed and create an alleyway as noted by the concerns of residents.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development noted that permitted development rights would allow for a fence of up to 2m and the negotiated height of 1.2m was more acceptable that what the applicant could put in place under those permitted development rights.

Councillor A Hopgood noted that this was not the first or last application where estates build with deliberate open spaces were having areas fenced off.  She added that the original designs were to promote community activities and to give a sense of openness and promote safety.  Councillor A Hopgood added that she felt it was wrong that these areas of open space were being taken and people being made to feel unsafe.  She added that she would dispute the description of the land as “derelict”, and that the land should remain as public open space. 

The Planning Officer noted that the application had been looked at in terms of the loss of open space and it had not been felt that the land offered value.

Councillor L Boyd noted visiting the site and that it was a tiny bit of scrubland and felt it would be better off enclosed.  She added that she did note the concerns of the Local Member and residents in terms of keeping the height of the fence as low as possible.  Councillor O Milburn asked for the images of the site to be displayed on the projector.  She noted that while she would be happy with a lower fence, the 1.2m height proposed was not so high, and indeed she herself would be able to see over this height.

Councillor A Shield reiterated the comments as regards the height of 1.2m being reduced to a lower height and was concerned as regards the levels of common land being given away.

The Planning Team Leader (North), Andrew Farnie reiterated the comments of the Solicitor - Planning and Development in terms of the negotiated height of 1.2m and the option of the applicant to erect a fence up to 2m under permitted development.  The Solicitor - Planning and Development confirmed that the applicant had a fall-back position in terms of those permitted development rights and that with no justification for a height lower than 1.2m, the proposal was for a height of 1.2m.

Councillor L Boyd noted that given the advice of the Officers, she would proposed that the application be approved.

Councillor L Boyd moved that the application be approved; she was seconded by Councillor M McKeon.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee.