Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the erection of a boundary fence.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

7.2             This was a retrospective application for the erection of a boundary fence.

7.3             The Planning Officer advised that this retrospective planning application sought to regularise the erection of a two metre, close boarded, timber fence fronting the corner of Maidenhall and Oakridge in Highnam.  The fence enclosed a triangular parcel of land approximately 0.07 hectares in size, within which three trees were sited which were subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Approximately just over half of the site was designated as a Locally Important Open Space.  The application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the objection that had been received from the Parish Council.  At the time of writing the Committee report, 99 letters of representation had been received from members of the public, 98 of which objected to the application. Since that time, a further comment had been received objecting to the application as set out in the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1. It was the opinion of Officers that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the open character and appearance of the designated Locally Important Open Space and would also harm the visual amenity of the site and the character and appearance of the wider residential area. Therefore, it was recommended that the application should be refused in line with the Officer recommendation.

7.4             The Chair invited a representative from Highnam Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that, in eight years as a Parish Councillor, he had never encountered an issue which had aroused such concern, anger and opposition to the extent that a petition of 1,041 signatures – over half the adult population of the village – had been raised and 98 letters of objection formally submitted to Tewkesbury Borough Council.  The fence was erected last November and six months later it was still there; he was most concerned at the lack of enforcement action taken by the Council despite the Planning Enforcement Officer acknowledging in his email of 30 November 2023 that a planning breach had occurred.   For over 40 years the triangle of land now enclosed by the fence was mown and maintained by Tewkesbury Borough Council under the purported ownership of Gloucestershire County Council; indeed, in 2019, the Borough Council formally approved an application from the Parish Council to plant a pollinator patch on this site.  This land formed an important green open space, one of a network of such spaces which characterised the beautiful and much cherished community. Such was the prospect of its loss that the Parish Council had applied to the County Council to formally designate the land as a Village Green and progress with that application continued.  The reasons given by the applicant for the erection of the fence were entirely spurious – he claimed it would protect the land from dog fouling but there was a dog waste bin immediately adjacent to the site; he claimed it would prevent fly tipping but there were no known incidents of this around the main village in living memory.  The Parish Council very much supported the Planning Officer’s excellent report, in particular the reasons for refusal: that the fence would have a significant adverse effect on the open character and importance of this land as a designated Locally Important Open Space; and, that, by virtue of its size, design, and siting, it would have a significantly adverse impact on the open character of the site which would cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the site.  In conclusion, he strongly urged Members to refuse this application, not only on its own intrinsic grounds, but also to act as a deterrent to help protect other open spaces around the village.  If Members were minded to refuse the application, he suggested they instruct Officers to take immediate enforcement action to secure the removal of the fence.

7.5             The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident advised that he had lived in Highnam for over 20 years and was raising a family in the village.  Like many others, they had moved to Highnam due to its semi-rural location, proximity to the countryside, relatively spacious housing plots and green landscape, not only around the village but within it.  It merged old and new housing stock and brought people together into a real village community.  Since the fence was erected in November 2023, he had been unable to access the land to maintain the north side of his beech hedgerow. The beech hedge had been growing for at least 40 years, was approximately 50m long and over 8ft tall and was home to nesting birds and a hedgehog route.  His and the surrounding gardens, including this plot of land, were home to bats that could be seen hunting every evening.  Until the 1970s, the hedge was used to border Maidenhall Farm where cows gathered in the yard – ground anchors for the gates could still be seen in the soil.  His neighbour was now unable to use their gate access to maintain their boundary fence, or access the village post office and shop as they had done since the housing was built in the late 1970s and the community had been unable to access the land for recreational activities including planting wildflowers, dog walking and for children to play.  As Members may know, Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and many others had reported the ever-dwindling variety of wildlife in countryside, towns and villages, indeed, there was a “Restore Nature Now” march in London next month with one of the aims being to deliver more space for nature.  The local community group Wild Highnam had used this plot of land since 2019 to plant wild flowers – access to the wild flowers had now been completely cut-off and subsequently destroyed by the landowner. The community was gravely concerned for the future of three beautiful large trees, including an Oak tree, which had Tree Preservation Orders and, with a fence surrounding them, were clearly vulnerable. The Sycamore Gap tree incident was an example of taking these things for granted – once they were gone they are gone forever.  The fence destroyed the streetscene from the surrounding areas of Maidenhall and Oakridge by blocking views of the land and trees and was not comparable to other garden fencing in the area.  There was no doubt that this land had been boarded up to support the ultimate objective of building a property, or otherwise using this land for purposes other than that which it had been used for over 40 years. This was never commercial land – it had always been farmland and community open space.  He and the overwhelming majority of the community supported the Parish Council in its application for Village Green status on this land to preserve it as a public open space and he requested that Members approve the Officer recommendation to refuse this retrospective application and seek immediate enforcement to remove the fence in order to deliver more space for nature.

7.6             The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought clarification as to why the application had been brought to the Committee given that the Officer recommendation was to refuse and was advised that, due to the level of objection, the Monitoring Officer had considered it would be in the public interest.  The Member asked for confirmation as to who owned the land and the Legal Adviser explained that when the original development was built out, this was identified as an area of incidental green space and, rather than it being transferred to the local authority as expected, the area had been retained by the developer for a number of years.  The developer had subsequently auctioned it off and it had been bought by an independent third party so was now privately owned.  She clarified that it had never been publicly owned by a local authority.  A Member asked if the owner of the land had erected the fence and confirmation was provided that Officers believed that was the case.  In response to a query, the Planning Officer advised there were no permitted development rights to erect any fence on the site.  A Member questioned what responsibilities the landowner had and was advised that the land had local policy protection under the Policy LAND4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan but that was not the same as a statutorily protected open space; anything the landowner wanted to do would be subject to assessment against the local policy protection.  In response to a query as to why the land had been maintained by Gloucestershire County Council, the Legal Adviser indicated that it was believed that, because there were a number of adopted open spaces in the wider development site, it was mistakenly presumed this was one of those areas and had been maintained accordingly; however, she reiterated it was not owned by the County Council.  A Member asked whether the public had a right to access if the fence was not there and noted the local resident had stated that the neighbour needed access.  The Legal Adviser explained there may be separate private rights set out in a legal document, or they may have rights as a result of using it for a number of years – in any case, that was a private matter which should not be considered in relation to the planning application.  A Member questioned whether the fence would be removed if the application was refused and the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) confirmed it would be passed to the Enforcement team to issue a notice requiring its removal.

7.7             It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.