Agenda item

Planning application documents

The planning officer introduced the report as published. 

There were three public speakers on the item; the objector, the applicant and a Ward Member.

The public speaker in objection addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The original planning consent for a fence of wooden construction with a height of 1.40m recognised the nature of the area and crescent but this has been spoilt by the overbearing erection due to the height and quality of the materials used.

-       Concerns have been lodged by a number of residents who ask that the fence be replaced by domestic fencing appropriate to the area in adherence with the original planning application.

The applicant addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       The material used is a wood look composite material that will not fade, rot or rust, and in appearance is similar to that of a painted fence.

-       There are a range of fence types and heights on Pitville Crescent Lane, Prestbury Road and surrounding streets.  The fence height matches the original height of the fence on the southern side of the garage and property which was removed to improve the line of site down Pitville Lane and reduce risk of road traffic accidents.

-       The property is on a busy corner that is used to access Albert Road and Pitville School, which causes privacy issues for the downstairs areas of the home.

Councillor Tooke as Ward Member submitted a written response to the committee and made the following points:

-       The original planning conditions were clear, specific and correct and specified a timber construction of 1.4m without concrete pillars.  There have been no material change to the context since the application.  It is important that the integrity of the planning process and the authority of the planning officer and committee are upheld.

-       The previous fence was low and subservient to the existing building blending harmoniously with the property and surrounding areas.

-       The height of the newly constructed fence exceeds the threshold that requires planning consent and is highly visible, disrupting the overall aesthetic harmony of the neighbourhood.

-       The council has committed to enhancing biodiversity in the planning process and the Cheltenham Climate Change Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that all proposals need to protect existing and enhance future biodiversity value, this should be considered with due regard to proportionality and the scale of development but in all cases high quality, resilient and contextually appropriate ecological and green infrastructure should be the outcome of design.  The plastic composite materials are neither environmentally friendly or sympathetic to the natural environment.

-       The overwhelming consensus of public comments are opposed to the fence with 14 objections from households in the neighbourhood.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

-       On Planning View only a close inspection revealed that it wasn’t wood and it was felt that the property does not offer privacy to the occupants without a tall fence.

-       There is a significant difference to the previously permitted height of the fence and it is visually intrusive to the street scene and the edge of the conservation area.

-       The development is not in keeping with clause 135 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy and policy D1 of the Cheltenham Plan.  It was felt that contrary to these requirements this was a prominent and harmful addition and out of character for the local area.

The legal officer reminded members of the cost risk of appeal.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to permit:

For: 1

Against: 6

Abstentions: 2

A motion was submitted by Councillor Baker that permission be refused on policy grounds SD4: Design Requirements 1.i “New development should respond positively to, and respect the character of, the site and its surroundings, enhancing local distinctiveness, and addressing the urban structure and grain of the locality in terms of street pattern, layout, mass and form.  It should be of a scale, type, density and materials appropriate to the site and its setting.” And NPPF 135 “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: (a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development”. And the Cheltenham Plan D1 “Development will only be permitted where it:… b) complements and respects neighbouring development and the character of the locality...”

The motion was seconded by Councillor Oliver.

The matter then went to the vote on the motion:

For: 8

Against: 1

Abstentions: 0

Refused.