Neighbours are fuming over a fence put up around the side of a property, saying it 'changes the whole feel of a very pleasant and friendly estate'. The homeowner is trying to get planning approval after it was built without permission.
After Gary Partlett submitted the retrospective planning application, people living near raised a number of concerns in written objections to their local council, describing the structure as an eyesore and a traffic hazard. The fence was described as being too high and obscuring the view of road users. One submission to the council, also said the fence “changes the whole feel” of the “very pleasant and friendly estate”.
Another resident, who lives in the Teeside estate, wrote: “The fence restricts the view along Wiltshire Road from the window where I am disabled and pretty much housebound, quality of life has been seriously diminished.” Another said: “Have witnessed and been involved in several near misses as vehicles try to negotiate a ‘blind’ corner because of the fence," TeesideLive reports.
However, a council report to planning members recommended approval, stating there was no significant adverse impact on neighbour amenity and the scale and the design was acceptable. It said while many homes in the area were either open plan, or simply had a small wall or fence to the front of their property, there were also examples of higher fences along the same road and around corner properties.
The report said: “Whilst the appearance of the fencing differs in appearance to the surrounding fencing due to the inclusion of a trellis, it is considered the height and overall appearance is similar to other fencing in the area and on balance in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. A condition will be included requiring the fence is painted dark brown to match neighbouring fencing within six months of any approval.”
It said the loss of a view was not a material planning consideration and referred to comments made by the council’s own development engineers, who said that there continued to be sufficient forward visibility around the bend at the nearby junction for vehicle drivers. But a local councillor, Philip Thomson, said he felt more information was needed about whether the fence was contributing to reducing highway safety. He also queried whether the applicant could reconsider the height of the fence.
The chairman of the planning committee, Councillor Tristan Learoyd, said he was concerned about the "unsightliness" of the fence, which was described as “evolving" over time. Councillor Learoyd also said he did not want the council to incur costs should any traffic management measures be necessary.
The decision was deferred at a recent meeting and a proposal that the matter be further discussed between the applicant and council officers was agreed.
Mr Partlett said he did not want to comment when previously approached by the Local Democracy Reporting Service. But he explained he had spent £800 on the fence and had been asked by council planners to modify its height so it could be approved.
He also described various issues he had experienced with neighbours since moving to the area.
