20210791 - 6 Sheppy Place, Gravesend DA12 1BT
Construction of a side wall between no. 6 and no. 5 Sheppy Place.
The Vice-Chair left the meeting for the duration of this item.
The Committee considered application reference 20210791 in relation to land at 6 Sheppy Place, Gravesend DA12 1BT. The applicationwas for the construction of a side wall between no.6 and no.5 Sheppey Place.
The Team Leader (Development Management) introduced application 5a to the Committee and highlighted key points from the report.
The Committee were informed that the recommendation from Planning Officers was for Members to approve the application with conditions as the proposed wall, subject to a condition relating to the use of materials, was considered to preserve the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and therefore accorded with Policies CS19 and CS20 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, saved Policy TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan 1994 and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.
In response to Members questions on the clarification of the application, the Team Leader (Development Management) explained that:
· Planning Officers did not have the measurement of the wall from the property side of number 5 Sheppy Place; the measurement shown was from the property side of number 6 Sheppy Place. There was not a significant drop between the two properties
· The homeowner could erect a two-metre fence without planning permission under permitted development rights which was 20cm higher than the proposed 1.8 metre wall in the application behind the front wall of the property.
· The proposed wall would be built fully within the red line boundary of number 6 Sheppy Place which was satisfactory and the existing boundary between no.s 5 and 6 Sheppy place would be untouched. Any damage to the property at number 5 following the building of the proposed wall would be a civil matter between the two property owners
· In regards to the objections received on page 13, item 5.2 and the fact that the entrance would be darker, especially at night, the Team Leader (Development Management) explained that there was no requirement to contact Kent Police as the distance from the highway to the front door would not require clarification.
· During the first submission of the application, a close boarded wooden fence was proposed but following officer assessment it was deemed inappropriate given the conservation area. Following consultation with the conservation architect, he recommended a suitable brick wall instead and advised of the preferred type of brick to be used. Once the applicant agreed to the change, the proposed wall was considered to have addressed concerns from neighbours, the service, and the conservation architect. There wasn’t a need to re-consult on the change of material
· Part of condition three specified that the wall had to have a plain brick edge and the conservation architect was specific on simple design
· The proposed wall would be as close to the red line boundary as possible so there would not be a significant visual gap between the boundary lines after the hedgerow was removed and the wall built
In item 5.10, page 15 the report mentioned there was a door in the side elevation of no.5 and this is a solid door with a fan light. The question was raised if it was a clear door, would it make a difference? The Team Leader (Development Management) explained that the glass had limited significance due to the door serving a non habitable space (hallway) rather than a habitable space such as a living room of bedroom
The Committee heard from Cllr Baljit Hayre, a Ward Councillor, who spoke on behalf of his fellow Ward Councillor, Jenny Wallace.
Cllr Jenny Wallace had referred the application to this Committee due to concerns regarding the impact on the Conservation Area. The original application was for a wooden fence to be erected but during the process concerns were raised by Officers regarding the use of materials and the applicant responded by proposing a wall and all materials were discussed. Cllr Hayre concluded his presentation advising Members that he was happy with the revised materials proposed and urged the Committee to consider the application in its revised format. Cllr Hayre also asked that conditions be added in respect of the materials used to construct the wall and the location of the proposed wall.
The following points were raised during discussion on this application:
- Following a concern about the size of the wall and the fact that part of the wall is likely to exceed 1.8m due to the different land levels, possibly even 2.3m looking at the photographs, it was agreed it would be difficult to make a decision about this application without correct dimensions provided by the Planning Team. The Service Manager (Planning) explained that all permitted development measurements were calculated from the ground level from no.6 and not no.5 Sheppy Place and therefore a fence under permitted development would always appear higher to no. 5 Sheppy Place. The bottom of the conifers indicate the ground level of no.6 Sheppy Place.
- If the height of wall was actually higher than anticipated, it could have a detrimental environmental impact and safety concerns which may need to be addressed.
- The Committee discussed the proposed wall and the fact that the shrubbery and conifers at no.6 Sheppy Place would be removed. There were currently no restrictions on planting hedgerows or height restriction. If any future issue occurred due to the height of the hedgerow it would be a civil matter between neighbours, resolved through the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 – Part 8 – High Hedges
- Options regarding the outcome of this application were discussed – to defer the application to look at dimensions of the height of the wall and also explore how far the doorway was down the alley and consider if there were any safety issues involved.
The Chair proposed that the application be deferred until the next Planning Committee to determine the application and allow for additional information to be sought regarding specific dimensions around the distance from the highway to the doorways and the different land levels between no.5 and no.6 Sheppy Place. Cllr Lane seconded that the motion; the motion passed with two abstentions received from Cllr Rice and Cllr Francis.
Resolved that application 20210791 be DEFERRED by one meeting cycle to allow officers to gather further measurements for the proposed wall from the adjacent property and the dimensions of the distance from the highway to the front doors.
Note: (a) Ward Cllr Hayre addressed the Committee.