Agenda item

MJC introduced this retrospective planning application for two picket fences in a new residential development.  They are set in a communal space, shared by all the apartments, and planning permission is required because they are adjacent to a listed building.  Councillor Sudbury has requested the application be considered at Committee, due to the high level of residents’ objections.  

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  this is a difficult application, and has caused a lot of friction between residents, which would have been wholly unnecessary if the developer had got the scheme right in the first place.  When residents first contacted her, could not see why it was such a big deal, but having visited the site, understood why they are concerned and felt it important to debate the issue.  In other circumstances, fences like this are not an issue, but here they cause a problem.  Firstly, the type of fencing is out of keeping – it has a suburban cottage style, while the rest of the development is high end, and features nothing else like this.  Secondly, the space is communal, and needs to be available so that all residents feel they can use it.  It is a planning issue; planning is about helping developers to make places where people can live comfortably, whether this is private, public or communal spaces.  This site is unfortunate – not one thing or the other.  Residents of the upper floors can’t use the communal space.  It is situated in a very narrow part of the site.  The issue needs far more attention;  all residents should be able to enjoy the gardens. 

Welcomes the revisions to the scheme, but still feels it should not be permitted.  It is out of keeping, and reduces the communal area.  Personally feels the site needs to be re-landscaped, with no step-drops, but this is not an excuse, and communal space is important at this part of the site because it is so narrow.  It’s such a shame as this is otherwise a good development – this is a weak point, and disappointing.  Hopes that CBC learns a lesson that communal spaces cannot be left to chance – it neither looks good, nor helps with the garden’s function. 

Strongly urges Members to refuse or defer, to allow re-profiling of the grass to a more gentle slope.  The communal garden is not currently a usable space for people paying for the privilege of using it.  It isn’t great for people on the ground floor either; they have private spaces but no particular understanding of how they can use it.  Hopes for a better proposal.  Will move to refuse or defer, but would add that the residents who objected would be happier if the fences were of materials more in keeping with the rest of the development, allowing the vision to flow through the site 

PB:  wasn’t on Planning View, but can see from the photographs that this development is a high standard of design.  Finds it bizarre that the developer would want the fence when the people who live there don’t – there is no way this fence fits in with the otherwise high standard of design.  Would be happy to move to refuse on CP7 – the fence does not complement the building behind it, is crass and unnecessary, and detracts from the open space.

CN:  there was discussion on view as to why the planning department is involved in this application, but on further reflection, and having heard the comments of KS and PB, is inclined to agree with the.  In his own ward, at Pilley Lane, there have been all sorts of problems with landscaping, with enforcement action required.  Agrees with KS that we can’t leave these communal gardens to chance with developments of this kind.  The applicant should be encouraged to keep the open nature of the gardens – why weren’t conditions included?  As PB says, it is strange that all the residents are against this proposal yet the developer is pushing for it.   Will support a move to defer.  

SW:  there’s not a lot more to say here.  On Planning View, the thinking was that there is a need to separate planning issues from management issues, and listening to KS and PB, is minded to refuse.  This proposal doesn’t protect the communal garden or complement the building.  Assumes that metal and glass fencing would not to appropriate for health and safety reasons.  The communal gardens should be kept open, so would support a refusal, but suggests that perhaps something else could be considered here.

GB:  would remind Members that they are not here to redesign planning schemes.

BF:  this proposal is retrospective.  If it is refused, can enforcement officers take action, because it doesn’t comply with the original planning application?

PT:  agrees with the previous speakers.  Was shocked when she saw the fencing – it was much more substantial than a simple picket fence, and there is another one behind it.  Both need to be removed.  Screens would be acceptable, but fending is intrusive, even if hedging is put in.

CH:  is not commenting particularly on this application but on lessons to be learnt with similar applications in the future.  Tom Price Close was meant to have communal space for all the residents to enjoy, but fences have bee erected which change the whole nature of the development.  The only way these could be removed now is through legal action with the original development; enforcement action is not an option.  For future reference, when we look at a design and like the communal area, we need to make sure it is settled, and that any changes need to come back for approval.  Unfortunately, people quickly get used to the changes, which makes it difficult to backtrack.

KS:  Members aren’t trying to redesign the scheme, but if the application is going to be refused or deferred, it could be useful for the developer to hear their comments – that materials should be more in keeping with the rest of the development. Not all the residents are opposed to the fencing, but there are concerns about the different levels of the grounds, and fencing is a cheap way to deal with it.  It is up to the Committee to decide whether to refuse or defer – she would be happy with either.  Refusal reasons would be that the fence is out of keeping and loss of the amenity of this communal garden for other residents.  If deferred, a better solution can hopefully be found, resulting in a better outcome for all residents.

MJC, in response:

-       Regarding deferral, this application has been in for a long time, since January 2016, and it has been very difficult to get any information from the applicant.  Cannot imagine any progress with the proposal if the application is deferred – is not convinced that this would achieve very much;

-       Regarding the fences themselves, Members have spoken against them;  CN is right that the enclosures are not necessary, and to BF’s question, enforcement action will be taken if the application is refused;

-       Has a question for Members:  they have two concerns – the type of enclosure and the principle of enclosure.  If the application is refused, it is important to refuse on reasons that are clear.  Do Members not want any enclosure at all, or do they simply consider the proposed fences to be an inappropriate means of enclosure.

GB:  PB has suggested CP7 as a refusal reason.

KS:  the blue lines on the diagram show a more appropriate place for the fences to go, but they need to be of the right material.  Patios are not communal areas - fencing is appropriate to enclose these – but the grassed area is communal, and any sort of fencing will make people feel they cannot use it.

SW:  agrees with KS.  It is appropriate to have some form of enclosure on the patios, but there should be no form of fencing on the grassed area.  Open areas should remain open.

PT:  if the application is refused on CP7, would like to include the type of material with which the picket fences should be replaced.

CN:  to MJC, clearly, given the historical circumstances, the refusal reason is the best way to achieve what Members want to see here.  Was going to say there shouldn’t be any obstacles to openness of the site, consistent with the officer report of 2012, but KS knows more about the site than he does, and is therefore happy to defer to what she has said.  Policy CP4 for loss of amenity could be related to the openness issue.

MC: everyone seems to agree, and this application has been discussed for a long time.  Members have been told they are not here to redesign a proposal, so they shouldn’t try.  The planners will speak to the applicant, and consider the practicalities.  The meeting should vote now and move on.

GB:  is CP4 an appropriate policy on which to refuse?

MJC, in response:

-       The extra few minutes on this debate have been helpful; officers can now write a refusal reason encapsulating Members’ opinions. It is not unreasonable to include CP4 as a refusal reason.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

0 in support

13 in objection

NOT CARRIED

Vote on KS’s move to refuse on CP4 and CP7

13 in support

0 in objection

REFUSE