Agenda item

Change of use (part retrospective) of land from agricultural use for the stationing of 6 Gypsy and Traveller Pitches with associated hard and soft landscaping. Variation of Condition 6 of permission reference 19/02276/CU. Erection of walls to the external boundary. As amended on 01/02/2024.

The Committee considered an application at Laurel Acre, Picketts Lane, Salfords for the change of use (part retrospective) of land from agricultural use for the stationing of 6 Gypsy and Traveller Pitches with associated hard and soft landscaping. Variation of Condition 6 of permission reference 19/02276/CU. Erection of walls to the external boundary. As amended on 01/02/2024.

Claire Minter, Clerk of Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application stating that the Parish Council was elected to represent a population of about 3,500, of which 2,700 were electors, in 1400households.  One of the key mandates for their Parish Council was to protect the Green Belt. This was a retrospective application to retain the brick walls and piers which have been built at the entrance to this site.  These walls and piers were completely different from what was mutually agreed by the applicant and the Borough.  This site was in the greenbelt where there was a presumption against inappropriate development and this development clearly failed to satisfy both Borough and national greenbelt policy. What has been built was an incongruous feature on this otherwise very rural stretch of country lane.  It did not respect the character or openness of the greenbelt; it detracted from it. The site layout was one of the reasons for the Borough agreeing to withdraw their enforcement notice and allow a five-year temporary consent for this gypsy traveller site. The piers and walls which have been built were much bulkier and higher than the agreed wooden fence. There was no agreement for wing walls or end piers, nor a fifth pier in one of the walls.  The bright colours of the substantial brick piers and walls stand out in a way that wooden fencing did not.  Their impact on the openness of the greenbelt was clear. These departures from the agreed plan were significant - not ‘marginal’ as stated in the Committee report.

The Committee report was correct when it said;

‘The matters identified as important in such works are the massing and bulk of the works, the height, location, position and visual prominence of the works and consideration of whether they respect the character and openness of the greenbelt.’

It was also correct when it said;

‘The walls are more visible within the greenbelt than the fence arrangement originally approved,’

It is unfortunate the report only showed what had been built.  While it referred to what was agreed - it did not show this, so the differences were not easy to understand. These wall and piers presented an overbearing, urban feature which had no place in the greenbelt or in this country lane. The number of objections to this application on the portal, very much reflected the concern of the local population. The members of the Planning Committee were requested to recognise that the walls and piers which have been built bore no relation to the agreed boundary treatment, did not maintain the openness of the area and were inappropriate development in the greenbelt.

The Committee was urged to refuse this application.

However, if permission was granted the Parish Council requested that there should be an additional condition which said no lighting be permitted on the roadside, or above, the piers and walls to respect the character of the area and openness of the greenbelt.

Claire Minter spoke on behalf of Fiona Byerley, an objector, stating thatin the application the applicant ticked the box which said it cannot be seen from a public road. This was not true. The Boundary wall proposed has already been built and was within a foot of Picketts Lane itself. It was immediately visible due to its very incongruous nature and size to anyone passing down Picketts Lane. The gate piers were more than double the original width agreed, and over 50% higher in height. There was no provision for wing walls, nor end pier, nor a fifth pier at 2.75m in one of the walls. The walls did not appear to have been completed and were likely to end up higher. The significant brick structures have been built in front of and were additional to, instead of replacing the fencing. Indeed, one of the wing walls cut across and sat in front of where previously agreed hedging would have been placed.  There was no comparison with other boundary treatments locally, and little comparison with traveller sites nearby. Once fully constructed and closed, this structure would be an overbearing feature of Picketts Lane, an urban feature, which had no place in the greenbelt and was against national and RBBC policy. Highways comments were noted regarding the visibility and danger of this access on Picketts Lane. There was significant traffic which used Picketts Lane, of which the Council were fully aware. Any vehicle coming from the junction would not see a vehicle person or cycle in the gateway until they were almost upon it, given the size of the wall and pier built to the right of the gate as one leaves the plot. The fencing previously agreed, did not obstruct visibility to the same extent, and in any event the vegetation could be trimmed back. It was requested that this be given significant weight by the Committee in reaching their decision. Electrical wiring had been installed along the wing wall on both sides of the gates. There was no reference to this in the application, and indeed lighting was not provided for, given the proposed screening of one of the walls entirely with laurel.

It was understood that the applicant believed that the brick structures were required for privacy and security. No other resident had required such structures in the immediate area, and they had no place in a greenbelt setting.  

There had been circa 200 comments on this particular application, most of which objected to an urban structure being built in this part of the greenbelt. It was felt that the applicant has had no due regard for the planning process, national or local guidance and they asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

Angus Murdoch, the agent, spoke in support of the application stating that the Secretary of State’s Inspector had granted a five-year temporary planning permission for 6 pitches, each of which would contain a mobile home a touring caravan and a boundary treatment that included a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence and a gate. That permission did not expire until 10 November 2026. All this application sought was to retain the brick boundary walls and piers for that temporary period. The officer accepted that walls of 2 metres in height could be built under permitted development. The difference between the permitted 1.8 metre, close boarded fence and gate, and the walls and piers there now on site was modest, minor and localised and could be mitigated by the landscape proposals produced by the appellant's landscape architect. There were many examples of similar brick walls locally, so the proposal was in keeping with the existing character of some houses in the area. The applicants have worked constructively with officers by amending the proposals so that it minimises the impact on the Green Belt, that no trees or hedges were harmed and that the privacy and security of the site residents has been ensured.

Councillor Chester, a visiting member, spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the significance between the current built structure compared to the original plan. Looking at the photographs the walls were large and double the width to what was in the application. It was visible from the road and was detrimental to the amenity. DES9 – impact on the greenbelt and harm to the natural built environment was cited. This was a permanent structure built on what was a temporary permission. When considering reasonableness, how could something so different be deemed acceptable? What has been built was markedly different to what was agreed at the beginning, and this was not reasonable.

Members were reminded that they had to consider the application as if it had not yet been built.

Councillor Thorne read out excerpts from policies CS2, CS3 and DES1 to give context to the reasons for refusal.

Reasons for refusal were proposed by Councillor Thorne and seconded by Councillor McKenna, whereupon the Committee voted and RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

1.    The proposed wall, by virtue of its excessive height, scale and permanence would constitute inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, harmful to its openness which, without very special circumstances to outweigh this harm, would be contrary to Policy NHE5 of the Development Management Plan 2019, Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2023.

2.    The proposed wall, by virtue of its height, scale and permanence would appear as a prominent and urbanising feature, significantly out of keeping with the rural character of this part of Picketts Lane contrary to Policy DES1 of the Development Management Plan 2019, Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2023.