Agenda item

Retrospective permission for 2.0m high timber security fence and gates

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding a retrospective application for a 2m high timber security fence and gates (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Inch, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor Lee, local Member addressed the Committee. Residents were concerned about the impact of the fence on neighbouring properties. This was a retrospective application and as such local people had been unable to make their views known before the fence was erected.  

The fence was intrusive, overbearing and attracted anti-social behaviour. It had also restricted the use of an existing footpath across the site. CCTV cameras had been installed which pointed into neighbouring properties and as surrounding roads were narrow she was surprised that the Highways Authority had offered no objections to the proposals.

In closing she stated that the application was contrary to Regional Planning Policy 8 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan as amended by Saved and Expired Policies September 2007, and should be refused.

Councillor Lethbridge, local Member stated that the camera above the fence and the high level lighting caused anxiety and fear among residents which could not be appreciated on the site visit that morning. Healthy leylandii trees had been cut down without permission and the applicant had stated that tenants of Bucher Court gained considerable peace of mind as children could no longer hide out in or around their homes, but this had caused fear among the residents in neighbouring properties. Because it was a retrospective application and the works had already been carried out there was a feeling of injustice among local people.

D Rowntree, local resident spoke on behalf of all those people who had complained. He reiterated the comments of both local Members and added that the fence was of poor quality and construction, giving Bucher Court the appearance of a secure unit, particularly with the CCTV cameras and lighting. The fence also reduced the amount of light and views of greenery on the site, and encroached onto the public highway.  

The footpath previously allowed children to access Cockton Hill school without having to use the main road. They now had to use the Oak Terrace/Elm Terrace alleyway which was poorly lit and even darker because of the fence.

He understood that the fence had been erected on the advice of Durham Constabulary’s Crime Prevention Officer and if it was to remain asked that it be constructed of a different material such as anti-climb mesh which would allow more light, would be less oppressive and would prevent youths climbing over and sitting on the fence.

In response to the comments made the Principal Planning Officer stated that it was unfortunate that the works had been carried out without planning permission but the applicant had erected the fence on the advice of the Crime Prevention Officer. The leylandii trees that had been removed were not protected, however those remaining had been served with a Tree Preservation Order. Part of the fence had been removed following a 21 day Notice served under Section 43 of the Highways Act 1980 because it had encroached onto the public highway.

C Cuskin, Legal Officer advised Members that this application related only to the retention of the boundary fence and gates, therefore the comments made in relation to CCTV and other items, which the Committee had been advised were not material considerations, should not be taken into account.

In response to a question from Councillor Williams in relation to the loss of the footpath, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Public Rights of Way Section had confirmed that there were no recorded rights of way through the site.

In discussing the application Councillor Boyes felt that the views of the Crime Prevention Officer should be accepted but was concerned that this was a retrospective application. If the applicant had followed the correct planning procedure residents would have been consulted and given the opportunity to submit their views. 

Councillors Holland, Campbell, Richardson and Tomlinson expressed the view that the fencing was not of poor quality; the fence would have been expensive, being of timber wood material and the colour finish enhanced its appearance, although Councillor Williams felt that a lighter colour would have been preferable.   

It was noted that sections of the fence above existing boundary walls were to be removed and Councillor Tomlinson felt that this was a welcome concession by the applicant. 

Councillor Davidson considered that the application should be approved as it improved security at Bucher Court and reduced anti-social behaviour. 

Following discussion it was Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.