Agenda item

New retaining walls to rear and sides and levelling of garden, involving demolition of existing retaining walls (retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

New retaining walls to rear and sides and levelling of garden, involving demolition of existing retaining walls (retrospective)

Officers presented the application which sought permission to build new retaining walls to the rear and sides and to level the garden, involving demolition of the existing retaining walls (retrospective). Members were advised that this item had been deferred at the 3 September Committee meeting pending the provision of more detail. Councillors were reminded that the application pertained to the retaining wall and garden only as the other alterations had already been granted planning permission. It was confirmed that there was an area of Green Belt to the rear of the site.

A petitioner spoke on behalf of the Gatehill Residents Association in objection to the application. Additional photos had been received and circulated to Councillors prior to commencement of the meeting. Concerns and comments from petitioners included:-

·         The application had caused damage to neighbours and was contrary to policy;

·         Re. policy BE38, the applicant had previously submitted a Design and Access Statement which discussed the importance of landscaping; this policy had then been ignored;

·         In the Green Belt woodland to the rear of the site was an oak tree located 1.5m from the pile wall. It had a diameter of 1.1m with a root protection area of approximately 13m reaching beyond the wall and into the garden area much of which had been concreted over. The pile wall and the removal of the clay soil had taken place within the root protection area and the tree was showing signs of damage with funghi growing at its base;

·         With regards to flooding, Woodgate Crescent was at the top of a steep hill and there was a slope from the woodland at the rear down to the house. There was a further drop in level from the house to the road.  The builder had reportedly admitted that the wall had passed through the water table and altered the natural water courses in the clay soil. This had caused water to run from the application site downhill to the neighbour's property causing significant damage. It was felt that the solution of diverting the water into public drains was unacceptable and added to the risk of flooding. It was also contrary to local and national policy. No drainage solutions had been suggested in the plans despite the flooding and damage caused.

·         The submitted photos showed drainage pipes which had been buried under concrete. They also showed cracks which had appeared in the resin surface and in the wall.

·         Petitioners were pleased that the case officer had discussed the application with the Council's tree and flooding officers and asked that the applicant be asked to take measures to address policy breaches.

Members requested clarification regarding the alleged damage to the neighbouring property. It was confirmed that the damage consisted of cracks in the paving, a rotting fence and water pouring down the garden.

The Head of Planning confirmed that informative number three should read A, B or C rather than A, B and C. It was agreed that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to address this error.

Members expressed concern regarding the impingement of the tree's root protection area which was known to be extremely damaging. Members were troubled by the Tree and Landscape Officer's comments in the report and expressed further concern regarding flooding issues and soil structure in the local area.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. It was agreed that the Head of Planning would refer the concerns raised to planning enforcement.

RESOLVED That: the application be refused and authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to amend Informative 3 as discussed.