Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for retention of front boundary wall and gates after alterations, and retention of wall to the rear and west boundaries (retrospective application). 

The Committee had already received a joint presentation from the planning officer, as part of 21/P/01997. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Tony Rooth to speak for three minutes in his capacity as ward councillor.  The Committee noted concerns raised that the application should be refused given the property was located within the Green Belt.  Seale Lane was a rural area with open fields opposite and houses with open front hedges, posts, rails and wooden fences.  The Local Plan Policy P2 stated that inappropriate development was not permitted in the Green Belt unless very special circumstances could be demonstrated.  The proposal constituted development which was inappropriate.  This was due to the substantial brick front wall and gateway pillars which were 1.8 metres reaching to 4.8 metres high to the side and rear and consisted of yellow brick work.  It would be the only property with a brick wall in front of it out of a total of 62 properties along Seale Lane.  The applicant had not put forward any very special circumstances and therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of the Local Plan.  Local Plan Policy P2 required all new development to be designed to reflect the distinct local character of the area.

The Committee discussed the application and noted the dislike for retrospective applications.  The proposal appeared garish and out of character compared to what was there previously and was not in keeping.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that despite it being a retrospective application they had to consider what was before them.  The Committee queried whether the retaining wall, as it was stated on p54 of the report, was an engineering operation to deal with the subsidence of the bank.  Did it need to be so tall and why was it required at the rear, down the side and around the front of the property.

The Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that issues in relation to subsidence and retaining walls were engineering queries which planning officers did not have the expertise in.  However, owing to the land level changes at the rear it was performing a function as a retaining wall which could be constructed up to 2 metres in height.  Civil issues were not part of the planning process and the Committee had to consider the planning merits of the case.

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was lost.

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried. 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 22/P/00203 for the following reasons:

1.       The boundary walls, by virtue of their material, colour and height present a garish and stark visual intrusion which is out of keeping with the rural character of the locality. The development therefore fails to comply with policy D1 of the Adopted Guildford Borough Local Plan 2019.

Informatives:

1.       This decision relates expressly to drawings 21/0036 REV B received on 20/07/2022.