Agenda item

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 24/01667/TPW in respect of Step 1. Installation of new fencing around field margins and Public Rights of Way (PRoW) routes within the RPAs of Tree Protection Order (TPO) trees. Step 2. Methodology and design for upgraded footpath along the central tree lined and hedgerow section of PRoW and within the RPAs of retained trees. Step 3. Design methodology and construction of proposed drainage improvements of existing ditches within the RPAs of retained trees.

2.       Jon Thomas introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. In summary it was confirmed that Highways’ Officers raised no objection to the proposal.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Clive Taylor, Parish Council representative, LaDonna McDonald and Joan Lawrie, objectors and Clive Taylor, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.       Councillor Taylor addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Objector Representation

7.       Ms LaDonna McDonald and Ms Joan Lawrie addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Objector

8.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following response:

• Regarding the reasons for the fencing, Ms Lawrie confirmed that when the original clearance work had taken place it had been asked why fencing was proposed and it was confirmed that the intention was to put sheep on the land. This had however, not happened.

Ward Member Representation

9.       Councillor Taylor addressed the Committee. This representation can be viewed on the recording: Eastern Area Planning Committee - 6th November 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10.   Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Member Questions to Officers

11.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

• Mr Till confirmed that it was correct that the default state of the land was agricultural unless it had received planning permission for a different purpose.
• Livestock could be grazed on any piece of agricultural land as long as there was no extant planning permission with a restriction on grazing livestock. It was clarified, in the case of abandoned use, that livestock could be grazed without planning permission.
• The landowners did not have to specify what the land would be used for once fenced. The owners could do as they wished as long as it was an agricultural use of the land and did not involve development.
• The potential impact on trees was the principal reason for why the application had been brought to Committee, with the impact on the public right of way as the secondary reason. The Committee was however reminded that there was a separate regime governing public rights of way and their obstruction.
• Mr Till commented that in terms of whether consideration needed to be given to badger setts, the Local Planning Authority had a duty of care in terms of biodiversity, ecology and protected species. For the current application there was a duty of care by the applicant to ensure any protected species were properly administered in line with the relevant habitat regulations and the application should give sufficient consideration of any impact on protected species.
• Mr Thomas reported that the Ecology Officer had been consulted on the application and no concerns had been raised. An Ecology  watching brief would be conducted due to protected species being covered by legislation. Mr Till confirmed, from a planning perspective, that everything that should have been conducted had been. There was overarching legislation that placed duties on the applicant if any endangered species were found whilst in the process of works.
• Regarding new rules for hedgerows and whether consideration needed to be given to this in terms of the current application, Mr Thomas confirmed that there were two new pieces of law. Firstly, the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and secondly the Management of Hedgerow Regulations 2024. Both were separate pieces of legislation and did not apply to a tree works application. If the applicant wished to remove a hedge, then a separate application would need to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
• Regarding whether a bird nesting season condition was required, Mr Thomas did not feel this was required as it was covered by separate legislation, The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which the applicant should be aware of.  

Debate

12.   Councillor Read referred to concerns about the fencing but understood that agricultural land could be fenced by the owner. He queried if the landowner could be advised regarding what fencing to use. Two bar fencing would enable wildlife to move around whereas movement would be near impossible if paling fencing was used. Mr Thomas reported that he had discussed the type of fencing to be used with the applicant and it had been confirmed that 1.2-metre-high stock fencing with three strands of barbed wire would be used, and therefore wildlife should only be minimally affected. 

13.   Councillor Kander asked if the land in question was adjacent to a piece of land allocated for development. Mr Till confirmed he was not involved in the Pincents application and therefore was not able to advise on the location however, reminded Members that the current application was not a planning application for development and was simply an application for tree protection work, which was not relevant to the allocations referred to.

14.   Councillor Read wished to hear the views of other Committee Members regarding concerns raised about the width of the proposed path and responsibilities as Ward Members in terms of residents feeling safe. He queried if this matter could be discussed with the landowner if fencing was to be erected. Mr Till advised that it was possible to place an informative on the decision notice asking the applicant to consider the layout of the land in terms of potential fencing and visibility lines of those using the path. Caution was added around adding a condition on the matter as the Town and Countryside Development Order 2015 allowed for the erection of fencing of up to two metres when not directly adjacent to a public highway.

15.   Councillor Poole felt that if the path was fenced it would be problematic in terms of safety. Councillor Poole also agreed with concerns raised about the free movement of animals, particularly as there were two ancient woodlands close by where there were deer and other animals. Councillor Poole did not fully understand why fencing was required in separate spaces around the site rather than a circumference perimeter fence.

16.   Councillor Kander in considering the proposal was unsure of how to balance the rights of the landowner whilst also catering for the free movement of animals. Mr Thomas referred to advice from the Forestry Commission regarding deer fencing where it was suggested Roe Deer, which had been seen on site, would be able to clear a 1.2m fence if erected.

17.   The Chairman clarified that advice suggested that the landowner could have erected the fencing without planning permission however, it was noted in the planning application that fencing was proposed. It was therefore queried if this enabled to the Committee to add any conditions on this matter. Mr Till stated that it was important to be mindful of the fall-back position and the fact that the principal planning legislation permitted up to two metres of fencing and did not specify the type that should be used or any special provisions. Mr Till therefore advised that a condition would be considered onerous. Given the concerns raised, an informative suggesting permeable fencing could be added for the applicant to explore.

18.   Councillor Read proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. It was proposed that an informative be included asking the landowner to consider using fencing permeable to wildlife or temporary electric fencing. This was seconded by Councillor Kander.

19.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Read, seconded by Councillor Kander, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.

• Wording would be agreed for an informative asking the landowner to consider using fencing permeable to wildlife or even temporary electric fencing.