A boundary wall in Marshfield can be lowered by the homeowner despite villagers claiming it is “architecturally significant”, Newport councillors have decided.

The city council’s planning committee heard how Stefania Farmer wants to lower her property’s side wall to improve visibility from a new driveway.

The applicant was also seeking retrospective permission for the driveway at 21 St Mellons Road, the committee was told at a meeting on Wednesday July 1.

But local resident Cath Davis said the planned reduction of the wall risked “permanent harm” to a “historic feature” that has stood for 150 years.

She called the wall an “architecturally significant heritage feature that contributes greatly to the character and identity of this part of St Mellons Road”.

The committee heard concerns lowering the wall may not be possible, and “once lost it is lost forever”.

Five neighbours objected to the plans during a recent public consultation period, and one of the ward’s representatives – Cllr Allan Screen – raised concerns about plans that risked “altering the fundamental character and nature of the surrounding area”.

He added the plans for a new access to the property threw up traffic safety questions, and said the council “needs to take a stronger stance” after a driveway had been refused planning permission previously.

But case officer Adam Foote said planners were “satisfied the reutilisation of a previous access is acceptable in principle”, and lowering the wall “will in turn improve visibility” to and from the driveway.

“From our perspective, we have no tangible reason to refuse this application,” he told the committee.

Mr Foote also noted some objections had challenged the ownership of the wall, but he said the council had seen “no evidence to the contrary” that it belonged to the applicant.

The committee also heard the wall could be altered or even removed entirely without planning permission – which was only necessary for the new driveway.

Cllr Mark Howells told committee colleagues “there would be nothing we could do to stop [the applicant] knocking that wall down”.

“While I have some sympathy, I think our hands are tied,” he added.

A majority of committee members voted in favour of granting planning permission, subject to conditions.