Boundary fence retention at 97 Humberston Avenue, Humberston

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the fence harmed the street scene and wider area character, contrary to design and character policies.

“The fence is sited approximately 0.7 metres from the footpath along Humberston Avenue, with a small hedge present between the fence line and the footpath. In respect of the surrounding area, the boundary treatments present consist typically of soft landscaping in the form of high hedges and trees with low walls adjacent to the footpath. Some fences can be seen but these are generally lower.”

“CONCLUSION It is considered that the proposal has a detrimental impact to the street scene and wider character of the area and it is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused as the proposal fails to accord to Policy 5 and 22 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2013-2032 (Adopted 2018), and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The heritage, ecology, highways, drainage and tree officers, village council and Civic Society raised no objections, while biodiversity net gain was exempt.

“REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Heritage Officer - No objections. Ecology Officer - No objections. Exempt from BNG. Highways Officer - No objections. Drainage Officer - No objections. Tree Officer - No objections. Humberston Village Council - No objections. Councillor Dawkins - Would like the application heard at planning committee in light of the support for the proposal from neighbours and given the surrounding context in which the…”

“Impact on Residential Amenity The proposal is located within an established residential area. As noted the majority of boundary treatments are high hedges and trees as well as low-walls. The main impact of the proposal in relation to surrounding neighbours is the introduction of the fencing and its height and width which has resulted in a visual change for the immediate neighbours.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke for the application, and Councillor Dawkins’s call-in statement was read to the committee.

The vote and decision

Members first rejected approval with conditions by six votes to four, then resolved to refuse the application by six votes to four.

“The committee took a vote on the proposal to approve the application with conditions and upon a vote, four voted for and six voted against.”

“Councillor Kaczmarek seconded the proposal to refuse the application.”

Minutes