Decision details

Mr Saunders introduced this application for a change of use of amenity land to garden land and erection of fencing, which he explained with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens: (a) an aerial photograph of the site and its surroundings and (b) photographs (various views of Windsor Drive and Harrow Drive and its overall open plan layout, the amenity strip, corner plots where landowners had introduced boundary treatment and the type of fencing which was being proposed). The basis for the recommendation to permit was set out in 8.2 to 8.6 and 8.8 of the agenda report.

The agenda update sheet reported an amendment to para 3.1 of the report.

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

(a)  Mr K Martin (West Wittering Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application.

During the discussion some members objected to the proposal, principally because it would detract (especially being on a corner plot) from the character and appearance of the open layout of this estate (a feature supported in the village design statement) and would set an undesirable precedent for others to follow suit. Some expressed reservations about the need for the proposal in view of the modest amount of land which would be enclosed and the type of boundary treatment ie a fence rather than a wall – the latter was felt, as between the two, to be more appropriate.

Mr Whitty and Mr Frost answered questions on points of detail regarding what was meant by amenity land; the ownership of this piece of amenity land; the extent of the land which the fence would enclose (the side and the rear); the fact that the planting of, say, a privet hedge would not require planning permission (it would not amount to development); the irrelevance of the applicant’s motives for wishing to enclose the land; and the imposition of a condition to require a wall to be erected in place of a fence would be a fairly substantial change to the application which ought to be addressed by negotiation with the applicant.

It was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mr Dunn that the application should be delegated to officers to negotiate with the applicant for a wall to be erected instead of a fence. The proposal was carried on a vote being taken: eight members voted in favour and four members were against.

Delegate to officers to negotiate with the applicant for a wall to be erected instead of a fence and then permit.

[Note This decision was at variance with the planning officer’s recommendation]