Agenda item

GD introduced the application as above, for the retention of two fence panels in these communal gardens. It is at committee at the request of Councillor Sudbury in view of a number of objections from neighbours. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Eddie Vickers, Thirlestaine Steering Group, in objection

Thanked Members for listening to the views of the great number of responsible owners who adhere to the leasehold and estate regulations and consequently object to this application.  Thirlestaine is a historic site, and its character and heritage should be maintained to a high degree as such, with any additions complementing the environment.  These should avoid unacceptable intrusion of the open spaces at ground level and loss of visual amenity which form an integral part of the development.  The fence panels reduce the intended design view and effectively close down the common garden area, creating an area for the private use of 1 Sandford Court, giving the impression of being exclusive and restricted.  Planning officers may consider that the trellis fencing doesn’t impinge significantly on the open space,  but owners are concerned that permission for this fencing will give a signal to other residents to erect similar fencing or structures which will impede access and encroach on the common open space.  The officer report considers whether this is a test case with regard to Estate Regulations, with wide repercussions in the future, though this is not a planning issue.  Residents therefore ask the Council to consider its duty of care to other owners by turning down this retrospective planning application.  Any structures within the curtilage of the Grade II listed building has to have planning permission, but these fence panels have been erected without regard to this, giving the impression of a private and exclusive garden, deterring people from entering and enjoying the open spaces. 

Mr Jonathan Porter, agent, in support

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, apologises for the retrospective nature of this application – the owner did not realise that planning permission was required, and is grateful for the opportunity to rectify this honest mistake.  The officer report sets out the case well.  Berkeley Homes gave permission for the fencing, and the estate managers have approved them.  The fencing is a trellis between two patios, and takes the place of a hedge which could have grown to a similar height.  It provides privacy in the short term.  It is in a discreet corner of the garden and doesn’t detract from the garden as a whole or impede movement.  The officer report states that it is difficult to quantify the level of loss or any significant harm to the neighbouring residents.  Supports the officer recommendation.  Regarding the concern about precedent, any future proposals would need planning permission and each would be judged on its own merits.  

Member debate:

PB:  is sad that this application for a piece of trellis fencing has had to come to Planning Committee.  The landowners and management committee have given their agreement. This isn’t a planning matter.  Supports the officer recommendation.

BF:  saw this on Planning View; the only reason why planning permission is required is because the site is within the curtilage of a listed building.  The photo shows gates big enough to get a mower through.  It is ridiculous that Planning Committee is being asked to make a decision on private property with its own management scheme, in a private residential enclave.  It is a decision for the management committee and the people who live there.

KS:  this might seem straightforward at first glance, but there is some background to consider.  These dwellings share a communal area which has sparked a lot of controversy from residents of the block.  The fencing and gate has provided an entirely different communal space to what they were originally expecting to have.  These are very important issues for planning – the communal use of an area, how it looks on site for those who live there.  The rest of the communal area is shared.  This should be refused on Local Plan policies CP4 and CP7, due to the impact on the look of the communal area and the effect on the occupier of the other flats who cannot use this part of the garden.  The gardens are for everybody, and this is a fundamental flaw in the original application.  The issue isn’t the listed building but about how to create communities which can live successfully together.  Everyone is paying maintenance for the communal gardens, but one resident has fenced off part of it and other residents cannot therefore use it.  This is a high density, high quality development, and shouldn’t have communal areas as an afterthought.  It is not clearly defined. If private patios are to be allowed, this should be established at the outset; later additions aren’t helpful in fostering communal gardens.  The application should be refused.

PT:  what about the fence and gates to the side?  Are they included in this application or a separate issue?

GD, in response:

-       The gates are part of the original development.  The application is for the trellis fence only. 

DS:  there appears to be a dichotomy here:  the gardens are communal yet the paved areas are for the sole use of those whose doors open on to them?  Considers the trellis to be acceptable, screening the applicant’s patio from the one next door,  and the issue should be sorted out by the management.   Will vote with the officer recommendation.

SW:  has sympathy with the views put forward by KS, and would like to see this garden as fully open plan, but is it within the Planning Committee’s gift to say this?

BF:  we are determining this application simply because it falls within the curtilage of a listed building., yet the gates are fairly recent, not part of the original application, and there was no planning application for them. 

GD, in response:

-       The gates were part of the original development in 2012.  The fencing needs planning permission because it is within the curtilage of a listed building.  Any future changes will also need planning permission for the same reason.

MJC, in response:

-       Regulations say that any means of enclosure within the curtilage of a listed building needs planning permission.  The trellis fence falls into this category.  The access gates are part of the original application;

-       Members are being asked to consider whether the gates are appropriate and what their impact will be.

GB:  KS has proposed refusal on Policies CP4 and CP7, due to harm to the open space and harm to the amenity and quality of life of other residents.  Will vote on officer recommendation first.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

8 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

CH:  we should learn from this when considering applications in the future.  The application was for communal gardens, with appropriate landscaping, and an application such as this will always be viewed as ‘spoiling’ the communal aspect of the garden.  This is an important point.  Patios are generally private, but these are difficult to close off.   Developers should bear this in mind.

KS:  agrees.  It should be at the forefront and made quite clear when developers are selling plots.