Skip to Main Content

Agenda item

Application DC/2018/00218 - Retention of timber close boarded fence on south boundary, and raise level of no. 21 garden between 120mm and 810mm over the fence length. 21 Jasper Tudor Crescent Abergavenny NP7 9AZ

Minutes:

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions as outlined in the report.

 

Mrs. H. Trotman, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         In August 2017 the applicant had built a breeze block wall along the full length of the mutual boundary. 

 

·         A new six feet six inches fence had been placed on top of the wall which raised the boundary level to 2.7 metres in height which breached permitted development permission. This has been in place for two and a half years, severely impacting on her residential amenity.

 

·         No prior consultation had been sought and it was considered by the objector that trespass would have been required to undertake the build, breaching the party wall act.

 

·         The objector considered that the applicant has breached the David Wilson restrictive covenants by not gaining written approval from the local authority prior to development.

 

·         As time progressed the ground works were causing harm to the objector’s land.  It was considered that the applicant had altered the natural flow of the land leaving the objector’s garden water logged.

 

·         The wall has caused a damming affect and subsequent severe pooling of water with nowhere for the water to drain away to.

 

·         The applicant has raised the level of earth on his side of the boundary that is higher than the wall resulting in an overspill of sod and earth into the objector’s garden.

 

·         A meeting was held on 10th October 2019 involving all parties and it had been agreed that harm was being caused to the objector’s property.  The objector had been asked to draw up a plan indicating a system of drainage to attempt to resolve the problem at her cost.

 

·         At a previous meeting, it had been suggested that a French drainage system could be installed which would alleviate the drainage issues.  A plan had been drawn up on this advice. The plan provided a system of drainage for properties numbered 19 and 21 running the full length of both boundaries.  This would be linked into the objector’s storm drain on her property.  This had been agreed by all present at the meeting.

 

·         Access was granted to the objector’s property to undertake this work. During the work, the objector considered that the applicant had failed to install the drainage pipe on the side of the objector’s garden.  The objector had not been advised of this change of plan.  Therefore, the water continues to pool as it has nowhere to drain.

 

·         Flooding also occurs on the objector’s patio.  The works undertaken have failed to address the harm being caused to the objector’s property.

 

·         Without a perforated pipe being installed on the objector’s side of the boundary there will be no improvement, as the levels constructed by the applicant are alien to the original development.

 

·         The density of the applicant’s chippings has further exacerbated the flooding problems. Damage to the objector’s garden in this area is severe.

 

·         The objector owned her property for over a year from new before the applicant had built the wall. During this time there had been a severe winter and no flooding had occurred.

 

·         The raising of the ground has impacted on the objector’s residential amenity and continues to do so.

 

·         On legal advice, the objector has withdrawn her good will gesture to allow the applicant to have access to her storm drain.

 

·         No guarantees have been given by the applicant with regard to any of the work that has taken place.

 

·         The objector is concerned that the value of her property is being affected by the applicant’s actions who considers that adequate steps to prevent damage to the objector’s property have not been taken.

 

·         With regard to the fence, there is a detrimental effect to the objector’s property. The current height is 2.7 metres.  The applicant’s revision indicates that the top 30 cm will now be replaced by trellis.  However, this would still take the fence above regulated height.

 

·         The objector considers that the options available will have a negative impact on her property.

 

·         The objector asked the Planning Committee to consider refusal of the application and that the wall and fence be removed with the ground being returned to its original level.

 

The applicant was given an opportunity to respond but declined the offer.

 

The local Member for Llanfoist Fawr, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

 

·         The local Member has no objection in principle to the land being raised.  However, it could have been undertaken better without the need for a second fence and without exacerbating existing drainage issues.

 

·         It was hoped that a resolution had been agreed between both parties.  However, this had not been the case.

 

·         There is perceived harm being done to the objector’s property which is a material concern.  Therefore, the local Member stated that he found it difficult to support the application without the issues surrounding the second drain being rectified.

 

Having considered the report of the application and noting the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         Monmouthshire County Council’s Drainage Engineer has investigated the work that has been undertaken and had indicated that the work carried out will, in time, mitigate the circumstances. The Authority has done what it can to remedy the situation.

 

·         The applicant’s garden had been raised by 700 mm which takes the party fence up to 2.7 metres, which is above the two metres regulated height.

 

·         The poor drainage will cause problems for the original party fence, which will rot over time. There will be issues over who is responsible for maintaining the original fence having had another fence erected on the inside of the original fence.

 

·         Any extension to the party fence will be unsightly.  The policy of permitted development should be protected by disallowing any raising of gardens which will change the nature of the ecology of the neighbouring properties.

 

·         The drainage issues have not been satisfactorily resolved.  Further investigations are required.

 

·         There is no definitive evidence that the unfortunate condition of the garden of property number 19 is entirely as a consequence of the ground works undertaken at property number 21. It is not within the gift of the Local Planning Authority to find a solution within the red line boundary.  The solution to the drainage issues has only been installed for a few months and has not yet had an opportunity to prove its effectiveness.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that we be minded to refuse application DC/2018/00218 on the grounds of lack of evidence that harm to a neighbouring property has been resolved.

 

Upon being put to the vote 10 Members of the Planning Committee voted in favour of the proposal to refuse the application. The proposition was therefore carried.

 

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DC/2018/00218 on the grounds of lack of evidence that harm to a neighbouring property has been resolved.  The application will be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting with appropriate reasons for refusal.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: