Boundary fence and gate at Marchwood, St Lawrence Road, Chepstow

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of the boundary fence and entrance gate. Works began in February 2025 and were completed in April 2025. The fence and gate are located around the front garden.”

“The fence has a minimum height of 1.53m and a maximum height of 1.98m. It is located above a dwarf wall.”

“This application relates to a detached two-storey dwelling located on the edge of the town of Chepstow. The site is located within the defined settlement boundary as shown on the Proposals Map of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP). The vehicular access to the property is via the unclassified highway, C255.9 which then joins onto the A48 Trunk Road. The property is also located within an air quality management zone.”

“For the reasons detailed in the preceding sections of this report, it is considered that the proposed development would cause unacceptable demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal does not comply with criteria b), c), e) and g) of Policy DES1 of Monmouthshire County Council's LDP.”

“The proposed gate and fence, by virtue of its design and prominent location, would cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenity and open character of the area. The proposal would fail to respect the existing layout and character of the surrounding built environment and therefore is contrary to criteria b), c), e) and g) of Policy DES1 of the Adopted Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.”

“MCC Biodiversity - Holding objection. The application is a retrospective application for change of boundary from hedgerow to fencing. The hedgerow lost is a single-species non-native hedgerow, approximately 47m in length. Although not a native hedgerow, it would have provided ecosystem benefits including shelter for birds and filtering pollutants. The first priority of the stepwise approach is "to avoid damage to biodiversity in its widest sense (i.e.”

“Compensation must be of significant magnitude to compensate for loss; this should be shown on detailed plans to include retained and existing vegetation, planting plans noting species, sizes, numbers and densities. Ideally compensation should be on-site, to meet PPW goals that developments leave biodiversity in a significantly improved state than before development. If that is not possible, off-site compensation must be provided.”

“Cllr P Pavia - As the local ward member, I wish to formally request that this application is considered by the Planning Committee rather than determined under delegated officer powers.”

“Level of Public Interest - Given the enforcement background, the proposed retrospective nature of the application, and the potential implications for other households in the area, this application is of wider public interest. A transparent decision in the public forum of Committee would give greater assurance to residents that all material considerations and precedents have been fully taken into account and that MCC's approach is consistent.”

“In this instance there is a clear sense of place in the locality, with neighbouring properties characterised by hedgerows, shrubs and low walls as a form of boundary treatment and long access driveways. The use of a fence and gate does not allow visibility into the site which creates a hard and tall enclosure directly onto the adjacent road. Within their context at the entranceway into Chepstow, the high boundary fence and gate appear alien within this setting.”

“The applicant has provided a Green Infrastructure Statement to support the application and it states that a Bird-box and Bug hotel will be fitted within the garden. However, a large section of hedgerow has been removed at the property to allow for the construction of the fence. The MCC Biodiversity Officer has commented that the hedgerow lost is a single-species non-native hedgerow.”

“We resolved that application DM/2025/01100 be refused for the two reasons outlined in the report.”