Replacement of existing fence with 1.8m high decorative panel fencing and continuation of panel fencing over existing driveway to rear of site (part retrospective)

Officers informed the Committee of a further assessment of the application that confirmed that this proposal did not constitute the improvement, maintenance, or alteration of the existing fence rather it was a complete replacement new fence of more than 1m adjacent to a highway and therefore was not permitted development and required planning permission and needed to be considered as such.

The CHDMBC informed the Committee that much of the concern expressed by residents related to a new fence which had also been erected and extended along the full length of the northern side boundary and wrapped around the corner and across part of the front boundary. This would be the subject of a separate planning application which would be reported to a future meeting and must not be considered as part of this application.

Some Members considered the fence, the subject of the application before Members, was out of character with the area and objected to the non- natural materials used which did not contribute to biodiversity.

Officers advised that the principle of a means of enclosure in this proposed location and of this proposed height was considered acceptable and having some form of boundary treatment of this scale would not appear out of place subject to detailed design considerations. This had been demonstrated by the previous fence which was sited in the same location and of similar height to that currently proposed which in officers’ opinion caused no harm to the character and appearance of the area. This was a material consideration which needed to be given weight by the Committee.

Whilst the external appearance of the proposed fence was unusual and very different from what was previously there officers considered it was not sited in an overly prominent location or of excessive length or height that would result in it appearing overbearing or overly intrusive in the street scene. Officers felt that the fence was just about within the boundaries of acceptable design and within the range of reasonable personal choice of the applicant, this was however a balanced recommendation, and design was a subjective matter for the decision maker to take into account, the decision maker being the Committee.

A number of Members did not agree with this assessment, and considered the balance fell the other way. These Members considered that the materials used were alien and incongruous to the detriment of the streetscene and character of the area, and therefore would not warrant support and approval of the application.

Some other Members commented that whilst the fence was not appealing aesthetically, the fence was broadly compliant with Planning Policy and they did not consider there was sufficient grounds to refuse the application,

A Motion to authorise the CHDMBC to grant planning permission was moved and seconded. The Motion was lost.

Following defeat of the Motion, and further debate on the design a Motion was moved and seconded that the application be refused on grounds that the fence by virtue of materials and appearance formed an incongruous and alien feature in the street scene.

The Motion was passed and it was-

Resolved that

The CHDMBC be authorised to refuse planning permission as the fence by virtue of materials and appearance forms an incongruous feature in the street scene to the detriment of its character

(Ms Wortley, an objector ,and Mr Munday, agent for applicant, addressed the Committee on this application)