Garden enlargement and fencing at 80 Eton Close, Witney

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought to enlarge the domestic garden and erect boundary fencing and a gate.

“Change of use of land to enlarge domestic garden and erection of boundary fencing and gate. (Retrospective).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a detached two-storey dwelling on a corner plot, with parking at the front and a rear garden.

“5.1.This application is seeking retrospective planning permission for the change of use to enlarge domestic garden and erection of boundary fence and gate at 80 Eton Close, Witney.”

“5.2.The application site relates to a detached two-storey dwelling. The dwelling is a corner plot and benefits from offstreet parking to the front of the dwelling and a garden to the rear of the dwelling.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The report records an earlier approval for single-storey front and two-storey side extensions.

“5.510/0279/P/FP- Erection of single storey front and two storey side extensions - Approved…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the modest enclosure compatible with the residential area, acceptable in design, and unlikely to harm neighbours or accessibility.

“5.5.The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission for the change of use of a small parcel of land to residential garden and the erection of associated boundary fencing and a gate. The enclosure and use of land as domestic curtilage and the provision of boundary treatments are forms of development commonly associated with the residential use of a dwellinghouse. The applicants have submitted compelling justification for the need of such enclosure.”

“5.11.Your officers consider the scale and extent of the enclosed area is limited and remains compatible with the establish residential character of the area. In addition, the use of natural timber provides a neutral appearance which will weather over time to help the fence integrate into the existing…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The town council objected over route accessibility and precedent, while the highways authority raised no objection and no third-party representations were received.

“Parish Council Witney Town Council Witney Town Council objects to this application.”

“Accordingly, Witney Town Council maintains its objection on the grounds of the impact on pedestrians, cyclists and mobility scooter users, together with the precedent that approval may establish within the locality.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, and the minutes record that there were no public speakers.

What members discussed

Members questioned the retrospective submission, land ownership, reduced pavement width, and whether more gates or openings should be prevented.

“The enclosed strip made a limited contribution to the character and appearance of the area, so its incorporation into the residential curtilage would not result in significant harm. • The officer advised that the proposal complied with Local Plan Policies OS2 and OS4, which seek high-quality design that is proportionate to its context and respects local character. The fence did not encroach onto the existing footpath and did not create accessibility problems for users.”

“The officer explained that the land was owned by the applicant and planning permission was not sought as the applicant believed that the land fell under permitted development rights. However, because the proposal involved both the enclosure of land and a change of use to domestic curtilage, planning permission was required. • Members raised concerns on the safety for pedestrians and cyclists as the width of the pavement had been reduced.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt proposed approval, Councillor Sarah Veasey seconded it, and the vote was five for, three against and two abstentions.

“Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Sarah Veasey and put to the vote. Vote: for approval 5, against 3, abstain 2 The Sub-Committee Resolved to: 1. Approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes

Conditions and informatives

The report states that no conditions applied and included notices about biodiversity net gain and community infrastructure levy.

“Please note that the proposed development is not liable for a charge under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) because it is less than 100sqm of new build that does not result in the creation of a dwelling and therefore benefits from Minor Development Exemption under CIL Regulation 42.”

“1 Please note that the proposed development is not liable for a charge under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) because it is less than 100sqm of new build that does not result in the creation of a dwelling and therefore benefits from Minor Development Exemption under CIL Regulation 42.”

Officer report