Agenda item

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised Members thatthe hedge, which had been removed, had been replaced by a close board timber fence, approximately 1.5 metres high. The hedge was understood to consist of Elaeagnus, a non-native flowering shrub, and in the supporting Planning Statement it was advised that around 50 per cent of the hedge was dead at the time it was removed which is thought to be around the middle of 2020 as a contravention was reported to the enforcement team at the beginning of June 2020.

The DMTL advised that the previous condition was considered to be poorly drafted and failed to meet all of the six tests as set out on page 52 of the Agenda Pack. The deficiencies in the condition set out in the report including; lack of precision,  no requirement for the hedge to maintained to a specific height, and no requirements for the hedge to be replaced if it died or was damaged.

He commented that there was no record how high the hedge was when the condition was imposed or the species that made up the hedge and that correspondence from 1993 suggested the hedge could have been Hawthorne, but that this was not definitive.

The DMTL stated that Officers considered that the condition did not meet tests 4, 5 and 6 of Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning conditions should only be used where they satisfy the following six tests, as such it is recommended that the application is approved.  In this case no conditions were considered by Officers to be necessary.

Public Speakers:

Deborah Hyslop – Chairman of Brinton Parish Council.

1. The Local Member – Cllr A Brown – spoke against the Officers recommendation. He commented that Condition 3 of the original 1993 consent stated that the removed hedge should not be ‘uprooted or otherwise destroyed without prior consent’, and stated that two years ago the applicant removed the hedge for reasons which were unclear. Cllr A Brown acknowledged that the subsequent submitted application was objected to by both the Parish Council and the Landscape Officer. He stated that there was a vicarious objection implied by the recent Conservation Area Appraisal due to the assessor recommending the retention of hedging instead of urbanising hard fencing to maintain the village character, and that it’s notable that the assessor makes no distinction between properties either in or adjacent to (as in this case) the conservation boundary. He noted the comments made by the Landscape Officer that the removal of the hedge would contravene Core Policy EN4 of the NNDC Core Strategy because it provides amenity value, continuous soft edges in the village street scene had been interrupted, as apparent in photos on pages 12 and 13 of the Agenda Pack. Cllr A Brown challenged the officers appraisal, detailed on pages 52 and 53 of the Agenda pack and stated that 1. It is an unfortunate reflection on the Authority in 1993 due to the errors in drafting Condition 3 (i.e. no stipulation for height, species type or duty to replace a dying hedge) which means the Authority are prevented from taking enforcement action 2. Members were advised not to consider the fence as a front boundary breach permitted development rules being 1.5 metres high instead of 1 metre limit. 3 He considered Members should be pressing for an application if Condition 3 is removed. 3. The length of time from July 2020 taken to deal with this case was a concern.

2. The PL advised she had not provided advice on the enforceability of the condition and that the opinion offered was by Planning Officers only.

3. Cllr J Toye sought clarity from Officers on the potential outcomes arising from the application and questioned if Members were minded to enforce Condition 3, what would be the effect on the current boundary. The MPM advised if the decision was reached by Members to enforce the condition, that the enforcement team would be notified. Cllr J Toye asked whether Members could grant a new planning condition, the MPM advised this was within Members gift. Cllr J Toye enquired what would be the best process to have a hedge re-introduced on the boundary. The MPM advised that this could be through the retention of the condition or the granting of a new condition but that this decision may be subject to appeal by the applicant. Cllr J Toye asked, if the condition was removed, what would be the best way forward which would re-establish the original intention for the hedge. The PL considered that the purpose of the condition was more or less sufficiently clear. If the hedge was considered to be dying it would have been incumbent on the site owner to contact the council to seek a way forward.

4. Cllr N Lloyd thanked the PL for her guidance, which he supported. He considered the intention of Condition 3 was clear, that a hedge should be retained at Knockavoe, and supported the comments made by the landscape officer.

5. Cllr N Pearce affirmed that the removal of the hedge and introduction of the fence was against planning guidance. He expressed his support that the condition be retained, and be enforced upon.

6. Cllr V Fitzpatrick stated that every application should be considered on its merits. He considered that the wording of the condition was not precise and that it may not be enforceable.

7. Cllr V Holliday asked of the condition when drafted in 1993 would have aligned with NPPF as it was. The PL confirmed this would have been the case.

8. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett expressed her support that the condition be retained. She considered that the replacement wooden fence with concrete posts, which had been introduced across the district, were unsightly and not in keeping with the rural landscape and specifically the associated village.

9. Cllr V Fitzpatrick proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation, seconded by the Chairman.

THE VOTE WAS LOST by 2 votes for, 7 against, and 1 abstention.

10. Cllr N Lloyd proposed that Condition 3 be retained in accordance with the Landscape Officers assessment in that the removal of the hedge was a contravention of NNDC Policy EN4.

RESOLVED by 8 votes for, 1 against, and 1 abstention.

Condition 3 of planning permission PF/93/0561, be retained, which reads “except as required to construct an access the hedge on the front boundary and the young trees within the site shall be retained and shall not be topped, lopped, felled, uprooted or otherwise destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority” to comply with policy EN4 of NNDCCore Strategy Policy.

The MPM advised Members that the fence would be subject to enforcement action, and that the decision made by the Committee may be appealed. He informed Member that he would inform the enforcement manager to progress with enforcement action.