Agenda item

Erection of new 2400mm high wire mesh fence to part of playing field boundary

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Ioan Thomas

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION:

⁠To defer to conduct a site visit

Erect a new 2400mm high fence around part of the playing field boundary.

a)    The Senior Planning Officer stated that it was a full application for the erection of a fence around part of the playing field boundary at Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen.

The application was submitted to the Planning Committee because the Local Member had declared an interest and provided comments on the application. 

It was highlighted that comments from the statutory and public consultation mostly referred to concerns arising from neighbours stating that it was an unnecessary development creating a visual impact, an impact on residential amenities and a human rights impact. A letter had also been received supporting the fence because there were problems with stones being thrown, trespassing on private property and litter being thrown into gardens.

Reference was made to Policy ISA 2, which relates to community facilities, including schools, and states that the LDP will assist in the maintenance and improvement of community facilities. The proposal would be located on the boundaries of an existing school, and the fence would be needed around the building to improve security within the school grounds. In terms of principle, the proposal was considered to be reasonable and in line with the principle of Policy ISA 2 of the LDP.

The proposed fence would be a green "weldmesh", which is a see-through fence and therefore it was considered that it would not create a closed or oppressive view of the school or the surrounding houses. As it was in keeping with the existing school fencing and allowed visibility, it was considered that it would not create a visual impact in the area, and it therefore complied with policy PCYFF 3.

It was reported that some neighbouring residents had objected on the grounds of visual impact and oppressive feeling, but it was noted that fencing of this type was common in schools to protect staff and pupils. As similar fencing already existed around the site, the proposal was consistent with the environment. The new fence would be approximately 4–5 metres from the rear of the houses, providing an adequate gap so that it did not have a significant impact on private amenities. It was reiterated that consideration had to be given to the need to protect pupils and school grounds as well as the land outside the school from damage, and on balance it was considered that this type of fence would not cause significant harm to the amenities of the local neighbourhood, and therefore it complied with Policy PCYFF 2 of the LDP. In addition, it was highlighted that trees had a protection order along the boundary with a condition to be imposed to ensure that no work on the trees was carried out without prior permission – this would protect the trees as part of the development.

The proposal did not meet the thresholds for the submission of a Welsh Language Statement or a Welsh Language Impact Assessment Report; however it was not considered to be detrimental to the Welsh language and therefore it complied with the requirements of Policy PS 1.

It was considered that the planning matters had been addressed in full with some comments referring to operational matters. The land ownership certificate was not considered to be incorrect, as the applicant was acting on behalf of the School and the Council, and the content of certain documents submitted was not considered to be incorrect or defective. It was reiterated that it was a matter for the applicant to contact neighbouring landowners and there was no obligation to do this under the Planning system.

It was considered that the proposal was acceptable and complied with the relevant policies. It was recommended to approve the proposal with conditions.

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·        Whilst accepting that the observation was outside the planning process, the Prescription Act 1832 allowed a right of way by prescription if there had been uninterrupted use for 40 years; it was an insurmountable right, an absolute one, which could not be defeated, that there had been evidence of uninterrupted use for over 40 years by several property owners so installing the fence would be a breach of law. 

·        Para 5.3 of the report stated, "The new fence will separate the gardens of the neighbouring houses from the school playing field, and the fence will be approximately 4 to 5 metres away from the rear of the houses in question. We therefore believe that this area between the rear of the houses and the fence is sufficient not to create a significant negative and adverse impact on the private amenities of the owners of those houses". There was no information indicating that there were already fences and walls separating the gardens of neighbouring houses and the school's playing field.

·        A site visit by a planning case officer provided the necessary physical context to evaluate a planning application, allowing the officer to assess the impact on neighbouring properties taking into account the visual impact, and understand the local character, which was essential before making a recommendation to the Committee. It would be interesting to know whether the case officer had carried out a detailed inspection of the site and more pertinently from where that inspection was carried out.

·        To properly evaluate this proposal and to understand why several objections were received, the officer who expressed objections would have to visit the properties that had expressed objections to see the impact that the proposed fence would have, before making a decision on the recommendation. Strongly argued that a recommendation could not be brought to the Committee without considering the impact of installing a fence on a property i.e. the effect of looking up at the fence and a sense of being closed in. Assuming that an assessment by an officer who had either not visited the site or that only a visit from field level was carried out - unaware of a request by an officer for permission to enter a property to carry out an assessment, which was surprising!

·        Given the topography of the land, the fence would be more or less at the height of the first floor of several properties. The fence would be a prominent feature that would have an oppressive and unsympathetic effect on the property, resulting in a sense of being shut in and a significant loss of amenity. When looking up from a back door at a fence, the top of the fence would be about 5 metres higher than where someone is standing, quoting from the report "approximately 4 to 5 metres away from the back of the houses".

·        The difference in level between the field and several of the properties was obvious. There was no reference to these different levels in the report – this information was important and argued that it should be considered intensively before reaching a decision.

·        Confirmed his objection along with the objections of many other residents to allow the installation of a fence due to a significant negative and adverse impact on the private amenities of owners – an unnecessary fence given that walls and fencing already existed on the site between the school grounds and properties.

c)     It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

ch) A proposal to undertake a site visit was made and seconded.

RESOLVED: ⁠To defer in order to undertake a site visit.