Erect and move fence.

The application was approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The Development Supervisor gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor GA Powell, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         No site visit had been approved by the Council however she had visited the site with the Planning Officer.

·         The Transportation Manager had not objected to the application.

·         The site was not public open space and was in the ownership of the applicant.

·         The amenity value was not significant as public open space.

·         Paragraphs 6.6, 6.7, 6.9 and 6.10 of the officer’s report were all in support of the application.

·         Visibility was not an issue.

Councillor PJ Edwards also commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The venting gabions needed to be accessed and should not be fenced in.

·         The proposed mitigation measures were a concern.

·         Trees had been felled and the gabion had been unearthed.

·         The application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy S1 as it did not respect or improve the health and safety through reduced pollution and safer design of the built environment and landscaping.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy S2 as high standards of design and layout were not being retained from the initial planning permission for Arundel Close.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy DR1 in terms of design principles and poor design and does not promote or reinforce the distinctive character and appearance of the locality.

·         The application was also contrary to UDP Policies DR2 and DR3.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy H13 in terms of sustainable residential design.

·         Policies LA2, LA3, LA5 and LA6 were also quoted as landscape reasons for refusing the application.

·         The application was contrary to UDP Policy HBA9 in terms of the protection of wildlife corridors within built up areas.

·         Due to these policy issues the application should be refused.

Members discussed the application and were generally in support of the application. They noted the existing posts that appeared to be higher than the two metres stated in the report however they were reassured by the Development Supervisor that the posts would be cut down to two metres high once the fence panels were erected. Members were of the opinion that a condition requiring the fence posts to be reduced in size in a designated time frame would be beneficial.

The Development Manager (Northern Localities) advised Members that the parcel of land in question was in fact part of the applicant’s garden and that it was not a public open space. He added that the applicant could have erected a lower fence without any need for planning permission.

It was noted that there had only been one letter of objection received in respect of the application and that this had now been withdrawn.

Councillors Edwards and Powell were given the opportunity to close the debate. Councillor Edwards reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The application had been bought before the committee as the Parish Council and one of the Local Ward Members had objected to it.

·         Site photographs presented to the Committee should be supplied by the Planning Department and not by the applicant.

·         The application was out of character with the design statement.

Councillor Powell reiterated her opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The existing fence will be removed and the new fence posts will be reduced to two metres high.

·         The existing trellis will also be removed.

·         The application should not have been bought before the Committee.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         B02 Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

2.         The fence, subject of this approval, shall not exceed 2 metres in height when measured from the highest point of adjacent land.

Reason for Approval

1.         In making this decision and noting that the development had been commenced the local planning authority concluded that the development would not harm the visual amenity of the area, adversely affect residential amenity or have an adverse impact on highway safety.

The local planning authority concludes that the development is in accordance with policies S2, DR1, DR3 and H18 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.