Agenda item

DEFERRED

Members considered whether or not enforcement action should be taken in relation to a front boundary wall which had been repaired and in part reconstructed at a property located in a Conservation Area without planning permission.

This matter was called to Committee by a Ward Councillor who considered the wall was not in keeping with the character of the area and as a planning application had not been submitted, enforcement action should be taken.

Oral representations from the owner’s agent against enforcement action being taken were received. The agent reported that as the work carried out was repair and maintenance, planning permission was not required and the Council had previously said that no further action would be taken. However, the Council was now of the opinion that an application should have been submitted.

Oral representations in favour of enforcement action were received from visiting Ward Member Councillor Simon Fawthrop who also spoke on behalf of his two Ward colleagues. He considered the previous wall had been beyond repair and was therefore knocked down and rebuilt. The replacement wall was too large, the materials were mis-matched and it was not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

The Head of Planning and Development Support circulated photographs of fences and gates within the vicinity to allow Members to compare them with the gates at the property. The current wall had been painstakingly matched to the previous wall which had been in bad condition and cracked. As the original foundations were used, the work was considered to be a repair. Legal Officers had advised it was not expedient to take action in this case. If Members were minded to authorise enforcement action, the Council would run the risk of a cost award against it if an appeal by the owner proved successful.

Councillor Turner considered the wall looked very much like the original and was not out-of-keeping with the area. The materials would weather in time and the gates compared favourably with the photographs of other similar gates in the vicinity. Councillor Turner moved that no further action be taken. Councillor Dean seconded the motion.

In response to a Member question, the Head of Planning and Development Support advised that the wall was identical to the previous one. While the gates were slightly higher, they were around the same height as others in the area.

Having visited the site, the Chairman had determined that the wall looked quite similar and he agreed the materials would weather in time making it less imposing. While the Article 4 Direction covered the construction of a gate, he queried to what extent Members were able to look at this on the basis that it was a new gate. The Chairman also alluded to the issue mentioned in the agent’s comments that the Council had previously said no further action would be taken but had now changed its mind.

The Head of Development and Support reported that the photograph of the gates included in the report was taken from Google Street View 2019. The replacement gate was like-for-like. It was up to Members to decide whether it was in fact a new gate and not a replacement. The Legal Team had advised that no further action be taken so solid reasons for the need to take action would be required from Members.

 A vote for no further action to be taken was lost.

Councillor Brock proposed deferral to differentiate between the height of the previous and existing gate and to determine whether the wall was a new build or not. The motion was seconded by the Chairman.

Councillor Scoates requested the addition of an informative requesting the owner to submit a planning application.

RESOLVED that the matter be DEFFERED to allow consideration of the differentiation between the wall and the gates and evidence of the wall being all the way down to the floor.

An informative was added requesting that the applicant submit a formal planning application for the wall and gate.