Officer Planning Report Recommendation

Officer's Report

Application No.:	12/01479/B
Applicant:	Alec Kneen
Proposal:	Erection of fences and gates (partial retrospective)
Site Address:	22 Reayrt Carnane Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5LN
Case Officer:	Miss S E Corlett
Photo Taken:	22.11.2012
Site Visit:	22.11.2012
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

The Site

1. The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated towards the lower end of Reayrt Carnane, to the south of its junction with Cronk ny Greiney. The property is a detached bungalow which previously had along its frontage a low wall (around 0.5m high) similar to others alongside the road. The property has a vehicular access which is not gated, again, like others in the streetscene and approval for a second access closer to the junction with Cronk ny Greiney.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is retrospective permission for the erection of fencing along the frontage above the wall and along the south eastern boundary. The fencing is to be a total of 1.7m high and comprises horizontal elements with a hit and miss style construction to allow wind to pass through. Also proposed are solid gates on both accesses: the gates are to be curved up to a maximum height of 1.7m, no higher than the proposed fence.

1. Also proposed is fencing along the side boundary alongside number 23, Reayrt Carnane. This fencing is to be 2m high and would comply with the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 other than the first 7m back from the road which is forward of the building line and can only be 1m without planning permission.

Planning Policy And Status

1. The site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 would enable a fence and gates to be erected forward of the building line provided that the gate and fence were no higher than 1m above ground level and that the fence consists of vertical elements which spaces in between. The proposed fencing does not comply with either the height or the appearance of this and the gates are higher than permitted in the Order.

1. In terms of Strategic Plan policy, the following policies are considered relevant:

"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 space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

1. Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users".

Planning History

1. Planning permission was sought and granted for the installation of a dormer window in the rear elevation (PA 10/0734). Permission was refused for the parking of two PPVs and the retention of the hard surfaced area of the driveway under PA 10/00951. Permission was then granted for the creation of a new driveway at the side of the site closest to number 21, Reayrt Carnane.

1. There have been no applications for the construction of fencing on Reayrt Carnane and there are no fences in existence along the frontages of this streetscene. There is a fence alongside 14, Cronk Liauyr which comprises vertical members with spaces in between and is on top of a wall and skirting the side boundary of the property up to a height of around 1.8m. There are also fences along the side boundaries of some properties where the fencing sits in front of the building line, up to various heights, mostly below the 2m height.

Representations

1. Douglas Borough Council indicates that they do not oppose the application.

1. There are objections from the residents of 23, 24, 31, 32, 39, 40 and 41, Reayrt Carnane who object to the application on the basis that the fencing is out of keeping and would present a "fortress-like" appearance to the street. There is also comment that the front garden has been hard surfaced and whilst one objector comments that this will improve manoeuvrability for the occupants, another advises that in the UK it is now subject to planning control. Neighbours also refer to the taxi business which is being operated from the property and the valeting and vehicle washing which is being undertaken at the premises. Permission was refused for the operation of more than one PPV at the site (see above). The adjacent neighbour also expresses concern at the impact of visibility from the proposed fence, for drivers of vehicles emerging from their site (number 23).

1. It should be noted that the Department considered the introduction of planning control for hard surfacing in order both to control the appearance of excessive amounts of hard surfacing and to prevent the impact of increased levels of surface water run-off which, in urban areas, can result in flooding issues. However, the Department elected not to introduce control over this and as such the hard surfacing of any part of a garden is not considered to be development and does not require planning permission provided that this does not result in any alteration to the access onto the highway.

Assessment

1. The issues to be considered are the visual impact on the streetscene and any impact which the proposed fencing may have on the outlook, amenities and highway safety of neighbours.

1. Appearance on the streetscene: the area as described above is generally devoid of fencing along the frontages which leads to a quite open streetscene. The proposed fencing would be a jarring feature within this and out of keeping with the appearance and character formed by the other properties and their gardens. Whilst there are some fences along the sides of the properties, few, if any are as tall as the proposed and there is none along the front. As such, it

1. The applicant has explained that it is his wish to have more privacy for his family, as the property is lower than the road and the bedrooms are at the front; he does not want to have people looking into the dwelling. However, this is not unusual for an estate of this type and there are other ways of providing privacy – hedging or shrub planting for example – without introducing quite stark fencing along the frontage.

1. The fencing will obstruct the visibility of those emerging both from the application site and number 23 inasmuch as drivers of vehicles will not be able to see any pedestrians on the footway and conversely, no pedestrians will be able to see emerging vehicles above the height of the fence. As such, it is considered that the height of the side fencing will obscure visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the application site and number 23 sufficient to be contrary to General Policy 2h and i.

1. Whilst the fencing would introduce a taller boundary treatment along the boundary of numbers 22 and 23, there are examples along the street of lower boundary fences but which have much taller shrubs planted which provide a more significant screen and which appear to be acceptable to the neighbours on each side. As such, it is not considered that the proposed fencing will adversely affect the outlook from number 23 or any other property sufficient to warrant refusal for this reason.

1. In summary, the proposed fencing would be out of keeping with the streetscenes and would adversely affect highway safety through the restriction of visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from numbers 22 and 23 and would as such be contrary to the provisions of general Policy 22, 2c, 2h, and 2i.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Douglas Corporation is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The residents of numbers 23 and 41 are either immediately alongside or opposite the application site and are considered to be directly affected by the proposal. As such they should be afforded party status in this case.

1. The residents of 24, 31, 21, 39 and 40 are not immediately alongside the site and should not be afforded party status in this case.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 06.12.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed fencing would be out of keeping with the streetscene and would adversely affect highway safety through the restriction of visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from numbers 22 and 23 and would as such be contrary to the provisions of general Policy 22, 2c, 2h, and 2i.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : ...

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager