Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked officers to clarify why the advice is to set the fence back from the actual boundary as the rest of the area is open, with officers appearing to be happy from a planning perspective to erect a tall fence but set back from the boundary, and if there is going to be a change why can’t the applicant make full use of their plot? David Rowen stated that the concerns officers have is that by coming out the new fence line is almost to the back edge of the footway, visually encroaches into open frontage and the open character, whereas the proposal now brings the fence out where the wall currently is, but not by a significant degree and not encroaching into the general openness.

·         Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that officers are happy with a complete change of street scene, but do not want the whole plot enclosed and he questioned why only a partial change is being proposed instead of a complete change. David Rowen stated that the officer’s recommendation sets out that this is a compromise by allowing the householder to erect a new fence and to demolish the boundary wall, safeguarding the general open character and not making an unduly significant or harmful incursion into the street scene. Councillor Cornwell stated that it is not a boundary wall, it is an enclosing wall, and the fence appears to be creating a boundary. David Rowen stated that the existing wall is described as a boundary wall, which is technically incorrect, and it also allows a slight expansion of the garden by 1 metre at the maximum. He added that there is a reposition of the screen to the rear garden of the property coming out by 1 metre at the most at one end which officers are happy with.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the previous application was refused partly on the grounds of visibility both for the road, coming into the drive, and for the pavement visibility splay. He added that the applicant was advised on that issue and they went ahead with the application as it was, which was turned down and now the applicant has come back and taken heed of officer’s advice. David Rowen stated that within the officer’s report it states the reason why the previous application was refused which as well as character there was also encroachment into the visibility splays. He added that there are comments in the report from the Highway Authority raising no issues with regard to that.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that the application is for a fence and she cannot understand why the objections relate to nose, light pollution, and traffic.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that although the application is small in real terms, this particular application highlights the value of site visits. He added that other properties near to the application site also have the similar type of fence and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that a fence is far safer than a brick wall and he will support the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and decided that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is Chairman of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee, and took no part in the discussions or voting thereon)

(Councillor Connor declared that the applicant is known to him and left the Council Chamber for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon.  Councillor Mrs Davis chaired this item)