Removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission DMNC/100481/CD regarding boundary wall.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Team Leader (Enforcement) gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. In respect of an issue raised at the site visit attended by members on the previous day, the team Leader advised that the tree referred to by Members was subject of a Tree Preservation Order. He also advised the Committee that the cost of demolishing the existing wall and building a new wall would be £20,000; the cost of stabilising the existing wall would be £13,000; and the cost of erecting a new fence would be £14,000

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mrs Hamilton and Mrs Butler spoke in objection to the application and Mr Hunt, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PJ McCaull, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The site visit undertaken the previous day had been beneficial.

·         The condition was put in place to safeguard the privacy of Mrs Butler and it should be enforced.

·         Mrs Butler had been patient during the works which had been expected to be concluded in August 2011 but were still ongoing.

·         The communications between Council officers did nothing to enhance the Council’s reputation.

The Committee discussed the application and were disappointed that the condition had not been adhered to and was now subject to an application to remove it. They felt that Mrs Butler had been tolerant and patient during the development process and that the Council should honour the existing condition and raise the height of the wall as initially agreed. It was noted that the application related to a £2.9 million development and that the cost of raising the wall was a small fraction of this.

Councillor McCaull was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and raised additional points, including:

·         Grange Court had been moved from Broad Street to its current location and was going to be a major tourist attraction for the County.

·         Mrs Butler previously lived next door to a quiet garden area but this had now been transformed into an area which would attract a high number of visitors.

·         The condition should remain in order to protect the privacy of Mrs Butler.

RESOLVED:

THAT the application be refused as the increase in the height of the wall is required to protect the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring property and the conditions still serves a planning purpose.