Dispute over boundary fence put in the spotlight
Retrespective planning permission is approved
A DISPUTE between neighbours over of a boundary fence was highlighted at a meeting of Charnwood Borough planning committee.
Councillors at the meeting heard from both sides of the fence, when they met to discuss a retrospective planning application.
The application was for a 2.5 metres high timber fence for 53 Meeting Street, Quorn, by Mr Julian Berrill.
Planning officers recommended that the application be passed saying that they didn’t feel it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not result in a material increase in harm to the amenity of adjacent properties.
The owners of No 51 Meeting Street, next door were objecting stating that the fence caused harm by way of loss of daylight and sunlight and had an overbearing impact.
But councillors heard from planning officers that if the fence was reduced to the lower height allowed, without the need for planning permission, then the improvement in light for the neighbours would be “very marginal indeed.”
Speaking at the meeting Mr Terry Hall from No.51 said: “The extent to which the fence affects our property is made worse by our ground level.
“Loss of light is a consequence of overbearing, or dominance, when a property is at a lower ground level. We are three quarters of a metre lower than the applicant.
“I’m sure the structure from a design appearance and materials point of view looks absolutely fine from the applicant’s side.
“From our side we are subjected to three, 125mm square posts, protruding screws, some 30mm through intermediate timber strengtheners and dangling cables for lights.
“We would have no problem at all if the fence was at the height of permitted development of two metres.
“In September last year, we applied for and were given planning permission to reduce the height of our wall with the aim of shedding more light in our property.
“It seems unthinkable. I would think unprecedented, and certainly goes against natural justice, for the same planning department, in the same local authority to recommend permission to be granted to this applicant to retrospectively be allowed to keep this structure at its curent height.”
Also speaking at the meeting was the applicant, Mr Julian Berrill, who said he wanted to provide some context and historical background in support of his application.
He said: “In April 2018 as part of a two phased garden redesign plan I dismantled a 2.5m high timber potting shed.
“The potting shed was fixed to the garden boundary wall at the height of 2.5m.
It had been in that position for 40 years.
“The garden boundary wall has stood for 400 years, also at the height of 2.5m.
“The previous owners of 51 Meeting Street built a conservatory abutting the 2.5m boundary wall, well over 30 years ago. As part of its design it increased the height of the boundary wall to three metres.
“Therefore, for the best part of 30 years, a three metre boundary wall has divided 51 and 53 Meeting Street.”
Mr Berrill said: “We only wished to replace the potting shed with a welldesigned timber trellis of equal height.
He added: “I have counted at least 10 examples of timber fences or trellis exceeding 2.5m in height within the village.”
Councillors at the meeting said that they could understand both sides of the argument, but agreed with the officers that the fence would not have too much impact on the property next door and passed the application.