Agenda item

Change of use of public open space to domestic garden

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of public open space to a domestic garden (for copy see file of Minutes).

N Graham, Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation on the application which included a location plan, site plan and site photographs.

The applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.  The application had been driven because of issues of anti-social behaviour the applicant was experiencing, with both eggs and conkers being thrown at his house because if its location adjacent to this parcel of land.  Young people congregated in the area and climbed into the grounds of The Hermitage.  This was not new but was an ongoing issue.  A leaflet circulated by Councillor Paul Sexton had referred to the anti-social behaviour issue in the Garden Farm area.

If the area of land, which measured some 0.3 hectares, was enclosed this would reduce the opportunity for anti-social behaviour.  The land would be enclosed using a post and wire fence and mixed hedge, which in time would obscure the fencing.  The applicant asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor J Robinson referred to the planning history of the site which showed two previous applications for this site which had been refused and dismissed on appeal.  The Planning Officer referred the Committee to paragraphs 63 to 65 in the report which provided details of the two refused application and also details of an application made in 2012 for the enclosure of land immediately to the south of 41 Carrowmore Road, which although approved under delegated powers, noted that any future encroachment into this space would be deemed to seriously erode the amenity value provided by the overall stretch of land and would need to be resisted.

In reply to a question from Councillor Shield, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the owner of the land was unknown.

Councillor Bainbridge informed the Committee that the area of land was identified by the County Council as designated open space and was used by residents on the estate.  To enclose the land would remove the available open space for local residents.

In response to a question from Councillor Darkes the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the applicant was different to that who made the 1991 application.

Councillor Boyd, while being sympathetic to the case put forward by the applicant, moved to uphold the recommendation to refuse the application because to enclose the land would remove a local amenity.  Seconded by Councillor Milburn and

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reason set out on the report.