DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00188/B Applicant: Mrs V Chimes Proposal: Alteration to existing garden wall and creation of window to side of garage Site Address: Hill View Ocean Castle Drive Promenade Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6LU Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 11.03.2020 Site Visit: 11.03.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.03.2020 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is concluded to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the supporting information date stamped as received 18 February 2020. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):

the owner/occupier of Hillside Bungalow, Ocean Castle Drive, Port Erin the owner/occupier of Hilltop, Ocean Castle Drive, Port Erin as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The application site represents the residential curtilage of Hill View, Ocean Castle Drive, Promenade, Port Erin which is located on the northern side of the Ocean Castle Drive and north-west of Port Erin. - 1.2 The property is a modern single storey detached bungalow, which includes an integral single garage situated on the western side of the front elevation. There is a lane which runs along the southern boundary of the site and connects Ocean Castle Drive to Fairway Close situated east of the application site. - 1.3 There is a 1.4m masonry wall that partly encloses the north-western section of the site and serves as a boundary marker between the application and the abutting dwellings, Hillside and 13 Fairway Close. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 This application seeks approval for alterations to existing garden wall and creation of window to side of garage. - 2.2 The proposed alterations to the existing garden wall would involve the addition of a timber extension on top of the existing garden wall. The wall extension will be made of vertical timber posts with spaces and of non-solid construction which would be supported by existing wooden posts which are concreted into the ground. - 2.3 This timber wall extension will be fixed to the top of the existing block wall using a 200mm x 50mm timber wall plate that will be bolted to the wall using M12 stainless steel threaded rods fixed into the block. The proposed timber fence would be 1.3m high raising the boundary wall height to 2.7m. - 2.4 Additional works will involve the alteration of the wall on the side elevation of the garage to create a window that would be 400mm wide and 500mm high. This window will be

• 1.3m above the ground level on the application site, making it 100mm lower than the existing boundary wall on this section of the application site bordering Hill side and 13 Fairway Close. PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The application site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan 1990 and the Area Plan for the South (Map 7) and 'Residential'. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 3.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policy is relevant for consideration: - 3.3 General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

3.4 Section 6.1: BOUNDARY TREATMENTS (Residential Design Guide 2019)

• 6.1.1 Boundary treatments, whether traditional or modern, contribute a great deal to the streetscape and character of an area. They define areas of private space and often make a positive contribution to the setting of the building. Poorly designed boundary treatments can undermine the quality of the built environment. Where new or altered boundary treatments are proposed, care should be taken to ensure that the proposed materials and detailing take a lead from the surroundings.
• 6.1.2 The suitability of the boundary treatment to the front of a property or facing the road should take account of the context of the area. For open plan estates it is normally better for there to be no walls or fences, with gardens being delineated through their use of low level plants. For more urban areas there may be a predominance of low garden walls with railings above. In rural areas, sod banks or hedging is more likely to be appropriate, unless there are stone walls present.
• 6.1.3 Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, generally no walls or fences should be higher than 1m where they face a highway. Boundary features to the side and rear boundaries can generally be higher (2m) without causing concerns. However, there are circumstances where there is a need for lower boundary heights in particular on corner plots, or if there is a public highway to the side and/or rear of the site.
• 6.1.4 Where dwellings are within an open plan estate or have a distinctive character, the erection of walls and fences greater than 1 metre at the front of the property is unlikely to be acceptable. The character of such estates is derived from the open, landscaped environment and physical built barriers will significantly detract from that character. For properties within a town/village where there is a repeated style of boundary treatments, for example low walls with cast iron railings above, then the style predominant in the street should normally be followed, in order to strengthen the existing unique character of the street scene. In rural areas, any new boundary treatment should be of the traditional style (i.e. Manx stone walling/Manx sod banks/post and wire fencing) typical of the immediate locality. Fencing and high walls should be avoided, especially to boundaries which are publically visible (e.g. roadside or footpath)
• 6.1.5 Overall, removal or substantial alteration of historic boundary treatments is unlikely to be acceptable. Boundary treatments should be designed in materials and details that respect the surrounding streetscape or area and boundary treatments should not be oppressive and should allow the building within the site to remain engaged with the wider streetscape.

3.5 It will also be vital to consider section 16 and 39 of the PDO 2012 as the works would involve the alteration to fence on a boundary with uneven site levels and within the curtilage of the application site.

• 3.5.1 Class 16 Fences, walls and gates The erection or alteration of fences, walls or gates within, or on the boundary of, the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Conditions:

• (a) the general conditions applicable to Section A;
• (b) the height, of the fence, wall or gate must not exceed:

• (i) 1 metre if positioned nearer than the dwellinghouse to any highway which bounds the curtilage; or
• (ii) 2 metres in any other case;

• (c) any fence which is nearer to any highway than the dwellinghouse must be constructed of vertical posts with spaces between, and not be of a solid construction.
• (d) any wall must be constructed of stone traditionally laid, or facing brickwork or rendered brickwork or rendered blockwork all with a coping at least 50 mm deep; and
• (e) no gates may open out over the highway or any footpath.

• 3.5.2 Class 39 Fences, walls and gates The erection, construction or alteration of fences, walls or gates elsewhere than within, or on the boundary of, the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Exceptions: Operations within this Class are not permitted if on completion of the operations:

• (a) in the case of the erection or construction of a fence, wall or gate otherwise than to replace an existing fence, wall or gate, the height, as measured from ground level on either side of the fence, wall or gate, would exceed:

• (i) 1 metre, where the fence, wall or gate is adjacent to a highway; or
• (ii) 2 metres, in any other case;

• (b) in the case of the alteration of a fence, wall or gate, or the erection or construction of a fence, wall or gate to replace an existing fence, wall or gate, the height, as measured from ground level on either side of the fence, wall or gate, would exceed the greater of:

• (i) the height of the fence, wall or gate before its alteration or replacement, and
• (ii) the height specified in paragraph (a) (i) or (ii), as the case may be.

PLANNING HISTORY The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications, none of which is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Representations from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division indicate that there is 'No Highway Interest' in a letter dated 10 March 2020. - 5.2 There has been no written representation made regarding the current planning application by the Port Erin Commissioners at the time of writing this report, although they were consulted on 2 March 2020. - 5.3 The owner/Occupier of Hillside, the abutting dwelling north-west of the application site has written in with the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 9 March 2020: I will like to object to this application as it would affect my property.

In the application it says they want to put a total of 2.7m high fence including the existing wall using existing fence posts. The fence posts are not existing, they were put there about two years ago.

This fence would take the light away from our front and side lounge windows which is approximately 3 metres from the wall and proposed fence.

The outlook from the windows would be just this fence. Also please note the wall is shared and we don't want any fixings or brackets fitted on the top of the wall as it will not be seen by them, only us with the eyesore.

A 2.7m fence is 200mm higher than their house roof line which is 2.5metre.

Also if this fence is allowed, they will not be able to see if I am driving my car down the drive when they are coming out of their drive because it will be too high. I have already had problems (near accidents) with small cars leaving their drive as the wall is 1.4m high.

There are three bungalows in a cul-de-sac all with matching walls going round them looks nice. If this fence is allowed, it will change the outlook overnight and make it look like we are living on an industrial site.

The application for the window in the side of the garage will look directly into our lounge side window. When their bungalow was built, the window was put in the back of the garage to stop this. They have changed the use of the garage to make a utility room at the back of the garage which has lost the light from the window.

They still have plenty light coming from the two garage doors which have windows in them.

• 5.3.1 In response to the comments made by the Owners/occupiers of Hillside, the applicant have written in with a response in a letter dated 11 March 2020:

Loss of Light/Height of Proposed fence. Hillside has an elevated position of approximately 1.3m above the ground level of our property Hillview. Based on the Residential Design Guide, section 7.3.2, the fence will not have any adverse impact on the light levels. The outlook will be 1.3m of fence from above the wall.

This fence would only obstruct the outlook over the property Hillview and the garages beyond. We wish to quote the comment made by Sarah Corlett on a previous application made by Hillview PA 09/2043/B that the 'protection of private view is not a material planning concern particularly when it is over private land owned by another party'. The distant view of hills will not be affected.

As a comparison to our request for a fence of 2.7metres the rules for a shed under permitted development allows a height of 2.8metres.

Proposed Garage Windows The request for the window in the garage is for ventilation as we store a petrol strimmer and the front windows of the garage are fixed and do not open. The requested garage window would be lower than the side lounge window of Hillside by at least 1metre and is also positioned at right angles, not directly facing each other and would be separated by a distance of 3 metres and therefore would not have a direct view in. The side lounge window of Hillside faces due East and will be unaffected by loss of light.

In addition, the ground level of Hillside is built up along the garage and is over 1 metre above Hillview. This drop in level needs to be fenced off as a matter of safety.

Fixing

With regard to the fixing we own the section of wall that has concrete coping and we can place all the fixing on our side of the wall. We can also place the fixing on our side of the shared section.

Driveway In response to the comment made regarding 'small cars' leaving our drive, we have never been informed of any 'near accidents' by the previous or current owners of Hillside and we have owned the property since 2009. The driveway in question is privately owned by Hillview. The current owners of hillside have lived there since 2011.

For information purposes the curtilage of Hillview is in excess of 20 metres from a public highway. Please refer to the diagram sent to us from Highways showing the nearest Public Highway.

5.4 The Owners/Occupiers of Hilltop, Ocean view Castle Drive has stated that they object to the application with the following comments in a letter dated 30 March 2020:

In respect of the above planning application I wish to object on the grounds: This will disrupt the overall aesthetic of the cul-de-sac. The wall, which will be 0.2 metres above roofline of the existing property, will be forward of the front line of the property. Therefore, it will not be "in keeping" with the rest of the bungalows matching boundary walls. It will look more like a rear yard encloser.

The high fencing proposed will reduce light and affect the view from the adjacent bungalow (Hillside).

With the proposed fence any traffic leaving Hillview will have a restricted view of the highway due to the height of the fence. On a recent planning application we made highways had stated that the walls had to be low enough not to restrict the view when leaving our drive onto the highway which is not maintained by public.

Other observations of the application which are not correct: The fence posts where recently installed approx. 2 years ago and haven't been utilised for any existing fencing.

On another matter the second map "Map of highways maintained at public expense" is incorrect and should show correctly as per "Site Plan". I assume this is a rough guide to draw attention to what is maintained at public expense.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The proposal seeks permission for two parts, the alteration of the existing garden wall to add a timber element to create a taller timber fence and the creation of an aperture on the side elevation of the garage to create a window; the fundamental issue in each case will be whether or not the proposal impacts the amenities of the neighbours. - 6.2 FENCE

• 6.2.1 The proposed fence work seeks to add a timber element to the boundary wall to increase the height to 2.7m when viewed from the application property. The works will increase the existing boundary treatment by 1.3m but will only be 1.3m when viewed from the neighbouring dwelling; works that could be erected under the Class 16 of the PDO, considering the fence will be less than 2m on the higher site level. Given the nature of the land here the neighbours on the northern elevation sit at a level higher (1.3m) than the application site. The new fence will therefore only be 1.3m high when viewed from these abutting properties and as such it is not expected that there will be any adverse impacts on the amenities of the neighbours.

• 6.2.2 Whilst the owners/occupiers of Hillside have noted that the fence would take light away from their front and side lounge windows which is approximately 3 metres from the wall and proposed fence, it is considered that the fence would only be 1.3m when viewed from their property and as such, it would not be able to impact on lighting coming into these windows at a distance of 3m. It is also noted that a 1.3m timber fence would not be able to impact on the outlook as its height would ensure that it remains a subordinate addition to the boundary at the site level of Hillside. Besides, the abutting dwelling (13 Fairway Close) has a similar timber fence which already serves as a boundary marker between the application site, Hillside and this dwelling; making the proposed fence work fit seamlessly into the character of the area.
• 6.2.3 With regard to possible impacts of the fence on highway safety, which has been raised by the owners/occupiers of Hillside and Hilltop, it is noted that the front element which abuts the driveway will be 2.7m on all levels. This would have had detrimental impacts if this was on the boundary with the highway or at a boundary with the abutting properties. However, this fence is situated within the curtilage of the application dwelling, although by the driveway; thus limiting any detrimental impacts that could result from its height. Besides, the wooden element (fence) would be constructed of vertical posts with spaces between, and not be of a solid construction; conditions which can qualify the development as permitted development within the PDO.

• 6.2.3 The comments made by the owners of Hilltop stating that the proposed fence would be above the roofline does not take into cognisance of the submitted plans which shows that the timber element installed on the existing retaining wall will keep the boundary treatment at

2.7m from the interior of the application site which is on a lower site level than the abutting dwellings. Besides, the property height is considerably higher than 3m and as such the comments cannot be considered to relate to the application dwelling. The comments regarding impact on the aesthetics, lighting and highway safety have been sufficiently addressed in paragraph 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, with the key planning issues adequately assessed. As well, any Issues that relate to land boundaries and delineations are legal matters that lie outside the scope of the planning application as land ownership is a civil matter and would hold no weight in the assessment of a planning application. Any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 can neither create nor detract from land ownerships, any right of way, or other civil legal rights and obligations as may exist between the parties.

6.3 WINDOW

• 6.3.1 Concerning the element of the proposed works which would introduce the new window on the northern elevation of the dwelling abutting Hillside and 13 Fairway Close, it is unlikely that impacts resulting from this alteration would be significant enough to warrant a refusal. This is hinged on the fact that the base of this new window would be set 100mm lower than the site level of these abutting dwellings, with limited views to these properties due to its size (400mm x 500mm) and its position on a depressed site level. Equally, the proposed window would serve a garage which is a non-habitable room with considerably limited usage; thus limiting any privacy concerns between these properties.

• 6.3.2 In terms of visual appearance, the property, as well as the neighbouring properties has a mix of aperture sizes across their elevations. As such, the creation of the new window, which is relatively small, on a secondary elevation is not expected to significantly alter the appearance of the dwelling to warrant a concern nor to impact the visual appearance of the streetscene. RECOMMENDATION
• 7.1 The proposal will not result in any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in the neighbouring property sufficient to justify refusal of the application and will not have any

adverse impact on the character or appearance of the property and thus complies with the provisions of General Policy 2 and is supported.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 07.04.2020 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our onlineservices/customers and archive records.