1037
The Committee considered an application for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a fence in the alleyway adjoining John Castle Way and Bourne Court to prevent documented anti-social behaviour such as: drug dealing, trespassing, and threatening behaviour. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the application had been called in by Councillor Warnes and is controversial locally.
The Committee had before it a report and amendment sheet in which all information was set out.
Philip Moreton, Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and assisted them in their deliberations. The Committee heard that a consultation response from the Police had been included in the Amendment sheet and detailed that the fence as shown in the photographs presented to the Committee and detailed that the closing of the route would mean the loss of an accessible route as well as the need to promote an accessible route. The Committee heard that the issues regarding anti-social behaviour had been taken into consideration when making a recommendation. The case officer detailed that the recommendation had been amended to provide a compromise solution to allow approval of the application with further conditions to secure a lockable gate along John Castle Way.
Jennifer Radford addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in opposition to the application. The Committee heard that they were speaking on behalf of local residents who were on both sides of the fence and detailed that it was frustrating to residents as they had been cut off and had meant that some house numbers on John Castle Way were no longer recognised as part of that road by the postal service. The Committee heard that the speaker had never seen any suspicious behaviour on the pathway or the use of motorcycles but had seen many confused walkers. The Committee heard that the speaker had lived in Bourne Court for 11 years and had never experienced any of the issues of threatening behaviour except for one issue. The speaker detailed that many people used the pathway to walk to Abbey Field. The speaker detailed that they suffered from mobility issues and that the retention of the fence would mean a journey three times longer than without and that it would necessitate the use of a car journey.
Councillor Dave Harris addressed the Committee as Ward Member for Berechurch. The Committee heard that the original application had been agreed in 2016 and that following residents moving onto the site issues had emerged with some motorbikes going down the footpath. It was noted that previously on site there were staggered gates to stop motorcycles and that the Police had been contacted regarding these incidents but detailed that there needed to be a facility to walk through down John Castle Way. The Ward Member detailed that they had received comments from residents both supporting and objecting the proposal for retention and if there was the possibility of a resident locking a gate for access that could work but reiterated there should be some form of route though, that the current situation was intolerable for some residents and that CCTV could ameliorate the anti-social issues in the area.
At the request of the Chair, the Planning Officer responded to the points raised by the Have Your Say Speakers. The Committee were referred to the Amendment Sheet where the Designing Out Crime Officer had detailed that there had been no reported crimes of anti-social behaviour in John Castle Way in the last 12 months. It was detailed that officers would like to see the pedestrian route stay open and that the recommendation had been amended to include a lockable gate. The Planning Officer further confirmed that the John Castle Way was not a designated Public Right of Way.
Members debated the application on issues including: the need for an open and transparent discussion on the application around the benefits of keeping the pathway clear for use by pedestrians and cyclists. It was noted by the Committee that there did appear to be elements of anti-social behaviour in the area and a query arose as to whether the developer had sought a certificate of development for the proposal prior to the application coming before the Committee. Concern was raised by the Committee on the sudden change in recommendations as there were areas that required further consideration including the hours of closure of the gate as well as the impact that this would have on the local community.
At the request of the Chair The Joint Head of Planning, Simon Cairns, detailed that the change of recommendation had come about from a discussion on how to reconcile the community interest of the walkway alongside the Community Safety issues and realised that a solution was possible to compromise and condition a lockable gate following further discussions.
Members continued to discuss the proposal with some Councillors commenting that it was a reasonable compromise but that there was concern in how it had been handled and whether it would set precedents for other developments as well as Committee decisions. Further debate continued on whether there needed to be additional lighting on the pathway, that a further consultation was needed with the Police and local residents on the proposed changes as well as the applicant.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to allow consultation with the planning agent/applicants and community over potential installation of a lockable gate in lieu of existing unauthorised fencing. Furthermore, it was resolved that the item would be returned to the Committee for consideration.
RESOLVED (NINE votes FOR, and ONE vote AGAINST) That the application is deferred to allow consultation with the planning agent/applicants and community over potential installation of a lockable gate in lieu of existing unauthorised fencing. Furthermore, it was resolved that the item would be returned to the Committee for consideration.