Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of 1.75m high hand woven hazel wood screening with concrete support post clad in timber with square timber cappings (partly retrospective) (copy attached).

An application was submitted for the Erection of a 1.75m high hand woven hazel wood screening with concrete support post clad in timber with square timber cappings (partly retrospective) at April Cottage, Glascoed Road, St Asaph.

Public Speakers –

Tim Donovan (Against) – stated how he objected to the application as it was on the boundary of his property. He advised the boundary was not a fence but a hedge, and should have an easement area. The hedge was well maintained and in good condition. A retrospective build was already in place which impacted on amenities and the easement to the hedge and did not allow maintenance to be carried out on the hedge. It was stated that the hedge was dead as the applicants building work had killed it. The hedge needed care and maintenance as the boundary between both properties. A new hedge and wooden fence would be in place in January, and relevant legal notices would be issued. Legal matters were ongoing in relation to the boundary. The application was considered void as the old coach house was not in the application. It was also stated that the committee had a duty to protect natural resources in the area.

Tim McSweeney (For) – highlighted the reasons why the fence had been erected, namely for security, privacy and safety. The existing fence had a gate in it which the neighbour could use at any time, which would impact on the privacy and security of the owners of April Cottage as anyone could use the gate and have access to the gardens there. The gate also posed a safety concern as the owners of April Cottage had grandchildren and the open gate posed an opportunity to leave the property. The owners of April Cottage were custodians to the property due to its age. Officers had recommended that the fence be permitted with a hazel woven fence and the cladding and capping of the concrete posts. The owners had complied with the suggestions. The reasons for killing the hedge were not substantiated at the time of the meeting. It was therefore requested that the committee grant the application subject to the conditions included in the officer recommendation.

General Debate – Planning officers drew the committee’s attention to the kind of fence which would be built. The application was being discussed as the fence was within the curtilage of a listed building and only required planning permission for this reason. The proposal was to replace the existing fence with a hazel woven fence. Officers had assessed the application, and the conservation officer had also reviewed the application. Officers recommended the application be granted.

Councillor Peter Scott (Local Member) stated that originally the city council did have reservations with the application, however following the revisions they had no objections to the application. A site visit had been organised but had been cancelled, and it was asked why this had happened.

Officers informed the committee that access to land had been denied, but it was nonetheless felt that the application could be assessed on its merits with the information and images supplied.

Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill.

VOTE:

GRANT – 18

REFUSE – 0

ABSTAIN – 0

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and supplementary papers.

At this point (11.00 a.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.