To receive
the Head of Planning’s Report No. PLN1541 (copy attached) which updates on the
Performance Indicators for the Development Management Section of Planning, and
the overall workload of the Section for the period 1st April to 30th June 2015.
Minutes:
The Committee received the Head
of Planning’s Report No. PLN1540 regarding a change of use of land from public
amenity land to that of a private residential garden by the erection of a close
board fence at No. 11 Fintry Walk, Farnborough.
A complaint had been received
in May, 2015 claiming that a 1.8 metre fence had been
erected by the owner of No. 11 Fintry Walk, enclosing
open land and changing its use to private residential garden land. Visits to
the site had confirmed that a 1.8 to 2 metre high close board fence had been erected on land adjacent to No. 11 Fintry Walk. The enclosure of the land had resulted in the
change of use of land to private residential garden. Land Registry records had
indicated that the land was registered to Hughes and
Rogers Limited, which was likely to have been the previous developer of the
estate and had since dissolved. A letter had been sent
to the owner of No. 11 Fintry Walk advising that the
change of use of land and the erection of a fence in excess of one metre high adjacent
to the highway required planning permission. Subsequent site visits had
revealed that the fence still remained and the owner
had failed to respond to further requests to cease the breach in planning
control.
The Committee was informed that the main issues were the principle of the
change of use and the visual impact and highway safety implications. It was
highlighted that the Council’s Core Strategy Policy CP12 recognised the important role that amenity land played within the street scene and
that loss of amenity land was resisted by the Council. The principle of
the development was therefore unacceptable in planning terms. With regard to
the visual impact, the enclosure by fence and loss of land to the general
streetscape had a detrimental impact on the setting of the property and overall
character of the area and could well set a precedent. This was contrary to the
objectives of Core Strategy Policy CP12 and Saved Local Plan Policy ENV17.
Concerning highway safety the Council’s Transportation Strategy Officer had
raised concerns about the positioning of the fence towards the rear of the
site, adjacent to the garages and parking space which
took access from Pennine Way. In order to maintain a suitable visibility splay
and to prevent conflict with vehicles and pedestrians, the fence would need to be reduced to a height of one metre.
It was
therefore considered that the unauthorised fencing and associated change
of use of land was considered unacceptable in principle, would result in
significant harm to the visual character of the area and would be likely to
harm highway safety.
RESOLVED: That the Council issue an Enforcement Notice
requiring removal of the unauthorised fencing with a period of one month for
compliance for the following reasons:
(i)
the enclosure of
open amenity land with close boarded fencing is detrimental to the character
and visual appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area; and
(ii) the unauthorised fencing, by virtue of its height and location gives rise to restricted sight lines and consequent potential conflict between users of the highway and footway, and vehicles entering or leaving the adjacent parking area to the detriment of highway safety.