Agenda item

[NOTE: The Planning Officer updated the Committee that since the report had been published, one further letter of support had been received although because this letter had been submitted via the applicant, and made no reference to the planning application, Officers considered it inappropriate for this to be logged as a letter of representation. It was however for the Committee to note.]

The Committee considered a retrospective application for new 1.8m tall boundary fencing and change of use from amenity land to private residential.

Following a query, the Planning Officer explained that this retrospective application had come about following an enforcement complaint that was subsequently investigated.

Following a question regarding the proximity of the bus shelter, littering and dog fouling, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that this point had been addressed under paragraph 25 of the report. Littering and dog fouling was not specific to this piece of land, and if the application was granted on that basis, then that could be used as a reason to enclose other areas of land that currently provided significant visual amenity.

Some Members agreed that the motive of the applicant was to increase their garden area, however did not think the fence looked bad or caused visual harm. Some Members thought that this could be the start of gradual encroachment on the visual amenity space in the area.

Councillor S Mukherjee commented that there were many letters of support and that she did not think the fence caused visual harm. Councillor S Mukherjee proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor S Dorsett that the application be approved.

The Planning Officer commented that if Members were minded to approve the application, they should address Policy CS17, which the proposal was in contrary to. The Planning Officer cautioned against approval as the application did not provide alternative amenity space of equal value, which was required by Policy CS17.

Following a question, the Planning Officer clarified again that the ownership of the land was irrelevant. This land was allocated as amenity land, not private garden.

Members mentioned other fences that were adjacent to the highway on the same road. The Planning Officer commented that this had been addressed in detail in the report regarding the character of the area. There was only one example found where amenity land had been taken which had been allowed on appeal in 1977. Planning Policy had changed since this time and it was not considered that this was comparable circumstance.

Some Councillors thought that it was important that we did not let amenity land be taken in this way. It was suggested that having this space round the bus stop made it safer and easier to spread out.

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs S Dorsett, S Greentree, S Mukherjee and S Oades.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              Cllrs T Aziz, G Cosnahan, C Martin and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs D Jordan and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Due to the equality of votes in favour and against approval of this application, the Chairman exercised a second and casting vote in accordance with standing orders to not approve the application.

The application was therefore not approved.

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation to refuse.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, G Cosnahan, C Martin and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  4

Against:                              Cllrs S Dorsett, S Greentree, S Mukherjee and S Oades.

                                 TOTAL:  4

Present but not voting:      Cllrs D Jordan and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  2

Due to the equality of votes in favour and against refusal of this application, the Chairman exercised a second and casting vote in accordance with standing orders to refuse the application.

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED and authorise enforcement action.