Agenda item

Change of use of grass verge to residential garden, erection of new boundary walls, and installation of new dropped kerb.

Public Participation

 

·       Mr Paul Flippance (Inter County Surveys), spoke in support of the application

 

The Planning Officer, Hayley Clark, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the change of use of a grass verge to residential garden, erection of new boundary walls, and installation of new dropped kerb be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the visual impact, residential amenity and highway considerations.

 

Attention was drawn that there was an error in the plan of elevation three, shown on page 28 of the agenda pack, as it showed the garden gate rather than the proposed dropped kerb. However, an updated version was available on page nine of Agenda Supplement 1 and shown as part of the Planning Officer’s presentation.

 

 The Committee were informed that the application site comprised an existing end-terraced dwelling located within an established residential area. The Planning Officer considered that the proposal, to incorporate an adjacent area of open green space within the residential curtilage, would have a negative impact on the character of the area due to the loss of openness and as the green space broke up the built form. She explained that the proposals were contrary to Core Policy 57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, as well as paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. There were a mix of boundary types in the area and there were concerns about granting permission for the proposed development, as it would set a precedent that may see the loss of further green space on the estate.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Planning Officer. Details were sought about why the Applicant was installing wooden panels at the back to make the structure higher. The Planning Officer explained that the proposed structure would be similar in height to the existing boundary wall at the rear of the property to maintain privacy. However, the wall towards the front of the property would be far shorter.

 

In response to queries about the exiting road sign and utility box on the site, the Planning Officer explained that they would need to be moved as they were located within the boundary of the proposed wall. Permission to change the access to the utilities would be required, but this was not a planning matter. She had not seen any details of designs showing the road sign behind the proposed wall.

 

The Committee noted that the Highway Authority had recommended that if the proposed application was granted, the grey utility box should be set back behind the utility box. Questions were asked about whether they would be able to propose a condition about the box’s location. The Planning Officer confirmed that was a separate issue for the Highway Authority, so it would not be necessary to impose a condition.

 

Details were also sought about the potential impact of a covenant agreed when the Applicant purchased the grass verge from Aster Housing Association, which stated that the land must be used as part of the residential curtilage. The Legal Advisor, Solicitor Level 2, Alwyn Thomas, confirmed that the covenant was separate to planning permission and was not a material consideration in assessing planning applications.

 

The Planning Officer was not aware of any other grass verges had been sold by Aster in the local area, although the Chairman did note that he was aware of other cases.

 

The member of the public then had the opportunity to present his views to the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Christopher Williams then spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member, the Planning Officer confirmed that the loss of amenity space included the impact on visual amenity and landscaping of the built environment. The Development Management Team Leader (South), Richard Hughes noted that the reasons for refusal did not claim that the grass verge was used for recreational activities such as ball games.

 

So that the Committee had something to debate, the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Carole King, proposed that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

A debate followed where issues such as the impact on visual amenity, height of the proposed wall, and current use of the land were discussed.

 

During the debate, a vote to refuse the motion was lost. Cllr Kelvin Nash then proposed that the application be approved, which was seconded by Cllr Sam Pearce-Kearney.

 

The Development Management Team Leader (South) highlighted that the Highways Authority had recommended that there was not any obstruction to the visibility of their splays over the height of 600mm. Although the proposed application was for a boundary up to 937mm, they had not submitted a formal objection. The Committee noted that they would not wish to restrict the height of the proposed wall to 600mm but wished to see the splays be kept free of obstruction.

 

In response to queries it was stated that the materials of the wall could be conditioned and that it would not be necessary to condition the utility box.

 

The Committee noted that they would be happy to delegate the final wording of the conditions to the Planning Officer and Development Management Team Leader (South). At the conclusion of the debate, it was:

 

Resolved

 

To GRANT planning permission for the change of use of the grass verge to residential garden, erection of new boundary walls, and installation of new dropped kerb.

 

Reason

 

Whilst the grass verge did have some visual amenity value, the poorly maintained condition of the land meant that the proposed development was not felt to have a negative visual impact and would actually slightly enhance the appearance of the site. The proposed development was not out of keeping with other boundary treatments in the area.

 

Conditions

 

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

 

 

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

·       Application form received 19/03/2024 Location plan received 28/02/2024

·       Proposed wall/fence elevations Drg no ICS/2117/03 Rev B (amended to include vehicle access for elevation 3) received 13/06/2024

 

·       Photo visualisation recieved 12/06/2024

·       Proposed site plan Drg no ICS/2117/02 Rev B received 16/04/2024

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

 

3.    The bricks to be used in the construction of the main walling in the boundary wall shall match those of the main house (13 Collis Terrace) in colour and texture

 

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity

 

 

 

4.    The development hereby permitted shall not be first brought into use until splays have been provided on both its sides of the access to the rear of the existing footway based on co-ordinates of 2.4m x 2.4m. As per the approved drawing DWG No: ICS/2117/03 Rev B, the splays shall always be kept free of obstruction above the height of the approved boundary walls.

 

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

 

 

5.    The development hereby permitted shall not be first brought into use until the first 2m of the access, measured from the edge of the carriageway, has been consolidated and surfaced (not loose stone or gravel). The access shall be maintained as such thereafter.

 

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

 

 

 

6.    Notwithstanding the submitted details, the proposed development shall not be first brought into use until means/works have been implemented to avoid private water from entering the highway.

 

REASON: To ensure that the highway is not inundated with private water.

 

 

 

7.    The vehicle access and parking spaces shall remain ungated.

 

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

 

Informatives:

 

8.    The application involves the creation of a new vehicle access/dropped kerb. The consent hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence will be required from Wiltshire’s Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. Please contact our Vehicle Crossing Team on vehicleaccess@wiltshire.gov.uk and/or 01225 713352 or visit their website at http://wiltshire.gov.uk/highways-streets to make an application.

 

 

 

9.    The applicant is advised that, if it is proposed to drain this development directly into the river or carry out any work within 8 metres of the watercourse then a Land Drainage Consent is required from the Environment Agency. For further information see www.environment-agency.gov.uk.