Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

Homeowners in Rogerstone have won a hotly contested bid to keep their remodelled back garden, after a council planner branded the work “unneighbourly”.

Members of Newport City Council’s planning committee went against an officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission for the works in Pontymason Close.

Paul and Laura Coombs had seen a previous retrospective application for their “terraced garden” refused but revised their plans to include planting for privacy screening.

Case officer Adam Foote told the committee that council planners were still minded to refuse the amended plans because of the development’s “impact on neighbouring occupiers”.

This was “namely an overlooking impact and a level of overlooking that goes beyond what could be reasonable within a private rear garden area”.

Mr Foote said the works had created “tiered areas” which had “changed levels” of the garden, allowing “views into the private garden of neighbouring properties, with an unacceptable and unneighbourly development”.

Proposed mitigation measures, which would involve planters acting as screens, were “not considered to be sufficient as to overcome the harm that has been identified”, he added.

However, planning agent Stephen Groucott said Welsh Government policies allow the development and “legislation clearly states you can use any part of your garden as a patio at any time you like”.

He alleged some details in the officers’ “terrible” report could “mislead everybody” to suggest the works involved raising the garden levels rather than lowering them.

Mr Groucott also claimed there were “15 houses with the same degree of gardening done” in the area, which he suggested could be expected because the neighbourhood is “on the side of a mountain”.

Much of the council’s consideration of local objections was based on submissions from a neighbour who had since moved, and was therefore “redundant”, he added.

Planning documents show the current occupiers of that property “do not object to the retrospective planning permission”.

“The garden appears to be in a similar state to when we viewed the property in the lead up to our purchase and does not materially lessen our own privacy,” they added.

Cllr Gavin Horton suggested it was “a bit futile” for the committee to consider a case where “the neighbours who we are essentially talking about – it’s their privacy we are discussing – haven’t raised an issue with the current works scheme”.

Mr Foote challenged that, however, telling the committee: “We don’t make our assessment based on whether or not neighbours object.

“Just because someone hasn’t objected doesn’t mean we should just allow it – equally if we have an application where people object to it, we don’t automatically refuse it.”

The committee voted 5-2 in favour of granting retrospective planning permission for the works, subject to several conditions including requirements for the planter screening to be installed and maintained.