(Retrospective) construction of wall approx 2' 9" x 15' in local stone located adjacent to stable block in paddock.  Sited where historical documents indicate a wall existed previously.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

((Retrospective) construction of wall approx 2' 9" x 15' in local stone located adjacent to stable block in paddock.  Sited where historical documents indicate a wall existed previously.)

The Senior Planning Officer (SPO) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.  He added that the Land Drainage Officer had advised that construction of the wall did not require land drainage consent because the watercourse had been successfully diverted. The culvert that created the diversion had been installed by a former landowner before the wall was built. Since then, improvements had been made by their riparian landowner to ensure that the diversion would work. This included an overflow from the pond.  The land drainage officer therefore had no objection.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Ms P Fender, a local resident neighbouring the application site, spoke in objection to the scheme.

The local ward member was the applicant and the Councillor appointed to fulfil the role of local ward member on her behalf did not wish to speak on the application.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Assurance was sought that the construction of the wall had not increased the risk of flooding on the neighbouring property.  The SPO reiterated the advice of the land drainage officer that there was no issue arising from the construction and no objection to it.

·        The committee update made reference to a further letter of objection that stated amongst other things:  “In her Planning Application the Applicant states:  "this is a reinstatement -- sited where historical documents indicate a wall existed previously -- reinstatement of wall that formed part of the curtilage at listing."  It was asked who had seen these historical documents, noting that they had not been provided to the objector. 

·        The SPO commented that the council did not hold the documents.  The Lead Development Manager added that the council held maps but these did not identify whether a line on a plan was a wall or a fence, for example.  An aerial photograph, undated, had been supplied by the neighbour.  This did show a wall in the area where the development had now taken place.  Another wall constructed by the applicant fronting onto the lane constituted permitted development.  He outlined the watercourse on a slide and how it flowed into a pond and thence into a discharge pipe.

·        Members reviewed the aerial photograph that had been included in the slides accompanying the officer presentation.

·        It was noted that the neighbour maintained that there had been an adverse impact on the amenity of her property from flooding as a consequence of the development.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the reason the application was retrospective was that in constructing the two walls a question had arisen as to whether both were permitted development.  On inspecting the site he had concluded that one wall was permitted development but the other required planning permission and listed building consent.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Seldon seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions.

173765/F

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.         B02 - Development in accordance with approved plans and materials

INFORMATIVE:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations, including any representations that have been received. It has subsequently determined to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.  

173766/L

RESOLVED: That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the following condition:

1.         D01 - Time limit for commencement (Listed Building Consent)