Agenda item

Change of use from public open space to residential curtilage including erection of fencing (partly retrospective).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the change of use from public open space to residential curtilage including erection of fencing (partly retrospective) at 17, 18 & 19 Roxby Wynd, Wingate, TS28 5PN (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.  Members of the Committee had visited the site earlier in the day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Mr A Turnbull, applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had lived in Roxby Wynd for 14 years and during that time the land in question to the rear of his property, had never been correctly maintained. He and his neighbours had been victims of flytipping on that land, which impacted onto their properties, in addition the area had also been used as a meeting area for youths which caused a nuisance. He and his neighbours therefore wished to have the area enclosed in its entirety to resolve the issues.

The concerns of the local members for Wingate were acknowledged and Mr Turnbull clarified that the rest of the open space to the rear of the properties would remain as such and would continue to be used as recreational land as was the original intention. He advised that the area of land subject to the application was  not attached to the rest of the open space and therefore enclosing it would not impact on the rest of the land.

Mr Turnbull advised that he had been forced to fell one tree within the enclosure of his property due to it being diseased, however neither he nor the other residents had any intention to remove any further trees.

Councillor Bailey advised that he was wholly against the application and concurred entirely with the Parish Council and local Members, all of whom objected to the proposals. He acknowledged the covenant which was attached to the open space and felt that approval of the application could set a precedent for future similar applications, all of which could be in contravention of the Councils Open Space policy.

Councillor A Bell acknowledged that the path to the rear of the three properties which separated the two areas of land, acted as a natural boundary, and so in principle, he had no issue with the proposals to enclose that land with fencing. However, having viewed the area on the site visit earlier that day, he had concerns regarding the quality of the fencing which would be used. He referred to other properties on the estate which had high quality sweeping fencing, however he felt that in comparison, the fencing which had already been erected to the rear of no.18 Roxby Wynd, was of a poor standard and was out of character with the surrounding area. He also feared for the resident of a nearby bungalow, whose view could be impeded by a 6 feet fence of poor quality.

Councillor Bell also expressed concerns about the existing trees. He commented that he found them to be mature trees in full leaf and good condition and felt it would be a shame if they were unprotected by a TPO.

As such, Councillor Bell felt that he could not support the application in its current form, and would have been more inclined to support in particular if the visual amenity aspect in relation to the height and quality of fencing, was better addressed.

Councillor Dixon acknowledged that the area land had obviously been mistreated in the past and was not an active area of open space, however he agreed that the visual impact was a problematic issue. He trusted the officers opinion that the fencing would not affect the residents of the nearby bungalow, however he remained concerned about the quality of the fencing.

In respect of the restrictive covenant, the Solicitor advised that officers had no details on the covenant, however it would not be a relevant planning consideration. Should the Committee grant the application and it transpired that there was a restriction, that would be treated as a separate issue.

Councillor Bailey remained of the opinion that the covenant was a relevant issue, especially as it had been raised by the local Members for the area.

Councillor Blakey concurred with the concerns which had been raised in relation to the quality of the fencing and queried whether the planners could work with the applicants to arrive at a suitable design. In response, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that could be done, indeed a condition could be attached to the permission requiring a design to be agreed with officers prior to erection. As such, Councillor Blakey moved approval of the application, subject to a condition relating to the design and quality of the fencing.

Councillor Freeman objected to the application as he felt there was no benefit to the community in approving the application. He also suggested that as the open space land had been a former school site, it was possible that Durham County Council may have imposed a covenant and as such, the Planning Committee would be unable to make a decision in respect of that land. The Solicitor reiterated that it was irrelevant who imposed any restrictions over the land as a covenant was extraneous to the planning system.

Councillor A Bell queried whether a condition could be attached to the permission relating to the protection of the remaining trees. In response, the Solicitor advised that as there was no technical evidence from the arboricultural officer to suggest that the protection of the trees was appropriate, the Committee were unable to require that the trees be retained.

The applicants addressed the Committee and assured Members that they had no intention of removing the trees, which they acknowledged were in good condition. Furthermore, they agreed to do alterations to the existing fencing to bring it to a suitable standard more fitting with the character of the area, as well as erect suitable fencing at the other properties.

Councillor Dixon suggested that the materials be approved by the Chair of the Committee, Councillor P Charlton. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that a condition could be imposed regarding the materials and that the Chair be consulted on the materials.

Upon a vote being taken it was,

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to conditions detailed within the report and additional conditions considered necessary by the Committee relating to fencing design and materials with responsibility for the wording of the additional conditions delegated to the Principal Planning Officer and to be agreed by the Chair of the Committee.