Agenda item

Erection of 1.9m high boundary wall to South West and South East of site (Part Retrospective).

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie, 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 Principal Planning Officer, AD advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of 1.9m high boundary wall to South West and South East of site (Part Retrospective) and was recommended for refusal.

The Principal Planning Officer, AD referred Members to photographs of the site and noted the wall was partially built at a prominent location, on a junction/entrance to the estate.  He explained the area contained semi-detached and detached properties, with the wall having come to the attention of the Local Planning Authority via a complaint and visit by Enforcement Officers.  Members were asked to note that the wall varied in height from 1.9 metres to one metre, and the lower sections did not require permission as they were allowed under permitted development rights.  The Principal Planning Officer, AD noted that the applicant was asked to regularise the position and apply for permission and had ceased works once they had been made aware.

The Principal Planning Officer, AD noted the 1.9-metre-high section was relatively high, and Members were asked to note the design with pillars at intervals.

He explained there had been no objections from the Highways Section, the wall having replaced a fence of similar height, the views of the highway having not been impacted upon.  In respect of public representations, the Principal Planning Officer, AD noted there had now been five representations in support, three at the time of the report being published, and a survey of the area which stated 22 of 37 properties on the estate supported the application.  He added that one representation in objection had noted the height of the wall was out of keeping with the area and was not the same height as the previous existing fence.

The Principal Planning Officer, AD explained that the Local Plan was generally supportive of such applications, subject to the impact on residents and amenity.  He explained that in this case Officers felt that the wall was not appropriate in terms of scale or design, being stark with no inclusion of railings or fencing to break up the extent of brickwork.  He added that it was not felt the wall impacted upon residential amenity, however, Officers considered that the development was an incongruous addition which adversely affects the character and appearance of the area.  The Principal Planning Officer, AD concluded by reiterating the recommendation was for refusal, with appropriate enforcement action to be taken should Members be minded to refusal the application.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer, AD and asked Local Member Councillor L Pounder to speak in support of the application.

Councillor L Pounder thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted the applicant had been unable to attend the meeting to speak as they were on holiday.  She noted the applicant was a perfectionist and had carried out renovation and extension work to their property to a very high standard over the last 18 months at some expense.  Councillor L Pounder noted that the applicant had not been aware he had needed permission for the wall, adding this was fairly new legislation he was not aware of.  She added that herself and fellow Divisional Member, Councillor R Crute had asked that the matter be heard by Committee as they and many residents felt the application represented a visual and safety improvement.

Councillor L Pounder noted that there had been no objections from the Highways Section and only one letter of objection.  She added there had been numerous letters of support and the “petition” style letter with support from nearby residents.

Councillor L Pounder noted that Section 10 of the NPPF noted that Local Authorities should approach application in a creative and proactive way, and she felt that the application was a positive one.  She added that paragraph 32 of the Officer’s report stated the wall was “…in such a prominent location is an incongruous addition within the streetscene which is visually obtrusive…” and noted the applicant had explained there would be planting that would help make the appearance more attractive over time.

Councillor L Pounder noted that if you were to ask local residents they would be overwhelmingly in support of the application, the height being approximately that of the previous fencing.  She added there were several different types of boundary treatment within the area and the wall itself would not impact upon any other properties.  Councillor L Pounder concluded by urging the Committee to support the application.

The Chair thanked councillor L Pounder and asked the Principal Planning Officer, AD to respond to the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer, AD noted that in terms of new legislation being relevant in this instance, that was not the case with there being longstanding requirements for an application for boundary treatments of around two metres along the highway.  He agreed the application had substantial local support, however, Officers felt this did not overrule the planning principles as set out in the report.  He noted that Planning had been proactive, and with the application being part-retrospective, Officers had made suggestions in relation to the design and application.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer, AD and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that while the design may not completely fit in, there was no objections from neighbours and the construction and materials appeared to be very good.  He moved that the application be approved.  Councillor M Davinson agreed with Councillor J Shuttleworth, seconding the application.  Councillor A Laing noted she had not been able to attend the site visit, however, was familiar with the site and felt the new wall was an improvement on the old fencing and would support the application.

The Chair asked for reasons for the approval, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor J Shuttleworth noted that highways were not affected and that he felt the application was visually in keeping, utilising the same brick type as the applicant’s property. 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Clare Cuskin asked if the Member was, in effect, asserting the opposite of the recommendation and saying the application was in keeping with the host property and wider streetscene.  Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he was.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED.