Agenda item

BH introduced it as an application that seeks consent for the erection of a boundary wall measuring 2.3 metres in height located at the rear of the property between the pair of semi-detached houses, the applicant is also seeking retrospective permission for the retention of a raised patio measuring 450mm in height. The application has been called to committee at the request of Councillor Lillywhite who would like members to consider the impact of the development on neighboring amenity.

Public speaking:

Mr Potter, applicant, in support

Speaks as a retired Police Officer and a Friend of Pittville and doesn’t flout rules as a matter of course; simply had no idea that the raised patio would require planning permission. Has made a number of improvements to the property, and it is the sloping nature of the site that has resulted in the raised patio and the desire to have a level threshold. Most of the patio is less than 300mm in height and the proposal is considered to have a negligible impact on neighbouring amenity and light. The proposed wall is only 300mm higher than the fallback position but 2m would still allow for invasive views. Made reference tounreasonableness, stating that they were reasonable people acting reasonably.

Member debate:

KS: does not feel able to vote on this application as she did not attend the site visit and doesn’t fully understand the application.

BF: saw the site on planning view and considers a rendered wall will be both attractive and provide the necessary privacy. Will support the proposal.

MC: Considers that the height of the raised patio is greater than the 450mm being applied for. Would therefore like further clarification on actual height and whether or not it has been measured and where it was measured from? Is disappointed that the report provides dimensions in millimetres and metres; dimensions should not be mixed.

JP: the applicant is looking to correct an error that stems from building the patio too high which disadvantages the neighbour. The two pictures used in the documents produced by the applicant are from different perspectives which is misleading but fully understands reason for wanting privacy. Feels that the patio is too high but that it would be unreasonable to seek its removal. Questions should be asked of the architect as to why the need for planning permission was not brought to the attention of the applicant - the error should not have happened in the first place.  Will be supporting the application. 

CH: advised committee that standard measurements should be in millimetres and metres and not in centimetres. The patio is not an issue, but the height of the wall is slightly more troubling. Is not prepared to object to the proposal on these grounds however.

BH, in response:

-       The wall has been measured from within the applicant’s site and the measurements are correct. In terms of correcting the error of the height of the patio, advises members that there is no obligation from applicant to put up any form of boundary enclosure.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit:

12 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT