Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01458/B Applicant: Mr John Graham Harrison Proposal: Erection of a boundary wall / fence Site Address: Groudle View Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2EY ### Considerations Case Officer : Mrs Jade Craig Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee : Onchan Commissioners Notes: approved.
The application site represents the residential curtilage of an existing modern detached dwelling, 24 Groudle View, Onchan.
The dwelling is located within the far eastern part of Onchan's built up area. The north of the site faces towards Groudle View, a residential cul de sac, and Groudle Glen. There are adjacent properties to the east and west of the site. The south adjoins Groudle Road, which extends from Church Road in Onchan Village to King Edward Road opposite Groudle Glen Cottages. The site slopes down from the southern boundary towards the dwelling.
Proposed is the erection of a boundary wall/fence to the southern boundary of the site along Groudle Road.
The proposed boundary consists of a fence positioned on top of a brick wall, with intermittent brick pillars. The planning application states that the height of the wall would be 500 mm , the height of the pillars would be 1.8 metres, the pillars would be set at intervals of 2.1 metres and the maximum height of the fence would be 1.8 metres. However, from scaling off the submitted drawing, the measurements were taken to be slightly different, with a wall height of 400 mm and a space of 2.5 metres between the pillars.
The application form states that the proposed fencing would match the existing fence. The existing southern boundary comprises a mismatch of stained and painted timber fences. There is a sod hedge to the adjoining sites along Groudle Road, but not to the application site. However, from visiting the site it became evident that there was previously a sod hedge here, but it has been removed, as the cuts through the adjacent hedges and ground underneath show bare soil with no vegetation. Further to this, from researching the history of the site, there was an earlier application which conditioned the reinstatement of a sod hedge along this boundary.
PLANNING HISTORY The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application;
99/00430/B - Approved at Appeal 05.05.00 Residential development for 67 plots, roads and sewers and erection of 61 dwellings. Land adjoining Lakeside Gardens and Groudle Road, Onchan.
01/01347/B - Approved at Appeal 30.06.02 Erection of two dwellings (alterations to house type and plot layouts). 02/01806/B - Part Approved on 17.02.03 and fencing to plot 9 Permitted on Review on 07.05.03 Erection of garden fencing on plots 1-8 and 10-61, of residential development. Conditions 1 and 2 of the approval notice dated 17.02.03 are relevant to this current application. Condition 1; This approval relates to the retention of the fencing alongside and to the rear of and side of plots 125 excluding the fencing alongside plot 9 , and including the fencing alongside and behind plots 31-53 inclusive. This approval also relates to the proposed fencing on the above plots and plots 54-61 as shown in drawings reference GG-Fencing 2 and GG Fencing 1 as received on 6th December 2002 except for the fencing shown behind plots 26-30 running parallel with Groudle Road. Condition 2; The fencing alongside Whitebridge Road and Groudle Road must be of a height lower than the roadside hedge and in respect of the hedge which has been removed behind plots 26-30, this must be reconstructed as a traditional sod hedge in accordance with Planning Circular 1/98 and the fencing leading to it must be lower than the height of this hedge.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES The application site is located within an area designated as "Proposed Predominantly Residential Use" in the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000, Map No. 1. The site is not located within a Conservation Area.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a policy which is considered material to the assessment of this current planning application;
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:
O/RES/P/4 4.48 LAND BETWEEN GROUDLE ROAD AND GROUDLE GLEN - Area 6 (Low Density Housing in Parkland). DEVELOPMENT OF THE PIECE OF LAND WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE SITE REFERRED TO IN 4.14 AND 4.48 ABOVE, GROUDLE GLEN, GROUDLE ROAD AND THE BRIDGE OVER GROUDLE RIVER WILL BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE FOR LOW DENSITY HOUSING IN PARKLAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANNING CIRCULAR 8/89 AND WHERE NO DEVELOPMENT IS ERECTED WITHIN 80 METRES OF THE GROUDLE RIVER. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE SITE AND GROUDLE ROAD MUST BE FORMED BY A SOD HEDGE - EITHER THAT WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS OR ONE RECONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE MUST ALSO HAVE ON ITS NORTHERN PART A SIGNIFICANT AREA OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTIGUOUS WITH THAT PROPOSED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJOINING LAND (see paragraph 4.47).
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the application is approved. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose this application, as there are no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
No written responses have been received from the general public.
This planning application is for the erection of a boundary wall/fence in a residential area. The main issue in the consideration of this proposal is whether the proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of the surrounding area.
The assessment has involved a site visit and research into the planning history of the site. From this, it has been determined that a sod hedge has been removed without planning permission and the existing fencing has also been erected without planning permission. Although the sod hedge has already been removed, this should neither advantage nor disadvantage the assessment of the proposal.
The application site and surrounding estate were approved under PA 99/00430/B. A subsequent application (PA 01/01347/B) was approved for alterations to the house types and plot layouts. Following this, planning application 02/01806/B proposed the erection of fencing to the development, but fencing proposed along the Groudle Road side of the application site was not permitted as part of this approval. The application site was formerly known as plot 27 of the development.
Letters on the application file of PA 02/01806/B discuss the subject of fencing along the Groudle Road boundary. A letter from Onchan Commissioners to the planning authority dated 31st December 2002 stated the following; "The Commissioners would recommend that the application be APPROVED for planning purposes subject to the following conditions:- No approval should be granted to the erection of the fence at the rear of the properties numbered 26-30 abutting onto Groudle Road and apparently sited on top of the sod hedge. It was stressed by the applicant at the Planning Appeal Hearing in respect of the whole development that the natural sod hedge abutting on Groudle Road would be retained to maintain the rural aspect of the road. Should any approval be granted to the siting of a fence at the rear of these plots it should be inside the hedge line and the level of the top of the fence should be below that of the top of the sod hedge."
The above extract confirms that at that time Onchan Commissioners were opposed to the erection of a fence along this boundary, as they preferred the natural sod hedge to be retained. However, it should be noted that Onchan Commissioners have recommended approval of the current proposal.
Following the letter from Onchan Commissioners, the planning officer dealing with PA 02/01806/B visited the site and noticed that the hedge had been removed at the rear of the dwellings along Groudle Road. The officer then wrote to the applicant with their concerns (letter dated 22nd January 2003) and stated that the replacement of the hedge with fencing would affect the rural character of this part of Onchan Road. It was also noted in the letter that the rural character of this part of Groudle Road was stressed during a debate of a previous planning application.
The applicant responded to the planning officer in a letter dated 24th January 2003. An extract from the letter follows; "Plots 26-30 The submitted drawing is misleading in that it erroneously indicates the presence of a timber fence sitting centrally on the line of the bank along Groudle Road. For whatever reason, part of the bank has indeed been removed. This will be replaced and planted with gorse so that it ties in with the remainder of the existing bank which will form the boundary of the above plots. New timber fencing which abuts this will be lower than the bank. It is our intention that the rural character of Groudle Road be maintained."
The approval notice for PA 02/01806/B conditioned the approved fencing on the development so that it was clear the fencing along Groudle Road was not permitted. It was also conditioned that the roadside hedge along Groudle Road which had been removed, had to be reconstructed as a traditional sod hedge.
The above information extracted from a previous planning application (02/01806/B) has established that at an earlier time, the loss of the sod hedge along this boundary was considered to be unacceptable. It is now important to assess whether there have been any changes in planning policy or in the surrounding area, which would now warrant the removal of the sod hedge and its replacement with a brick wall and fence as acceptable.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan came into operation in 2007 and General Policy 2 from this plan should be applied to this application. The parts of the policy which should be applied to this application are parts c and f. Part c requires development to not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. Part f requires development to incorporate existing topography and landscape features where possible, particularly trees and sod banks.
Policy O/RES/P/4 from the Onchan Local Plan 2000 ensures that the houses to the east of the site along Groudle Road have a sod hedge marking their boundary with the road. The policy states that "The boundary between the site and Groudle Road must be formed by a sod hedge - either that
which currently exists or one reconstructed as part of the development." This policy is still relevant and has been adhered to in proposals to develop the adjacent land.
The surrounding area marks the change between the built up area of Onchan and the countryside. Dwellings within the area are detached, at a relatively low density and are sct back from Groudle Road. The boundary along the northern side of Groudle Road is marked by a sod hedge, which was conditioned to be rebuilt under PA 02/01806/B. The dwelling to the west of the application site (no. 22 Groudle View) has a wooden fence and vegetation to the top of the sod hedge. Other properties to the east of the application site have a more rural sod hedge, without fencing. In contrast to the properties on the northern side of Groudle Road, there is a more urban style vertical timber fencing to some of the properties along the southern side of Groudle Road.
It is judged that the proposed wall and fencing to the application site would be at odds with the sod hedge of the adjacent properties. This is because the sod hedge has a rural feel and the proposed boundary is urban in style, so it would appear to be prominent in the area. It is also important to take into account the fact that the site is part of the area which marks the change between the urban and rural parts of Onchan and it is felt that it would be inappropriate to have a strong contrast between the built up area and the countryside.
Although there is a timber fence to the adjacent property (22 Groudle View), the sod hedge has been retained here and the boundary is softened with vegetation. In addition to this, the vertical and horizontal wooden posts of the fence are generously spaced and do not have a dominant urban character.
There is fencing to properties on the opposite side of Groudle Road, so it could be argued that the area already has an urban feel and the proposed fencing would be in keeping with the area. However, having visited the site and looked into the history of the area, it is difficult to support this argument. Although there is fencing to properties on the southern side of Groudle Road, these dwellings are on the opposite site of the road to the application site and their fencing is viewed in a separate group context. There is also no planning history of having to retain or rebuild sod hedges on this side of the road. In addition to this, in terms of what is actually proposed, the fencing would be mounted on a brick wall with intermittent brick pillars, which in itself is considered to be much more noticeable than the existing timber fencing on the opposite (south) side of Groudle Road.
Overall, taking General Policy 2 into account, it is considered that the current proposal does not comply with parts c or f of the policy. This is judged to be the case as the proposed wall and fence would be overly prominent, adversely affecting the rural character of the surrounding landscape and would fail to incorporate an existing landscape feature (the sod hedge).
The proposal is considered to be contrary to the relevant planning policy in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be refused.
Due to the unlawful removal of the sod hedge and the planning authority's refusal to allow a boundary wall / fence to be erected in its place, the sod hedge is required to be reinstated or enforcement action will have to be taken. Given the nature of the works required to reinstate the sod hedge, it is considered that it would be appropriate for the planning authority to give a period of 4 months for the restoration of the hedge. This would obviously be subject to any possible appeal against the refusal and the decision becoming final.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.11.2010 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The proposed boundary wall and fence would be contrary to General Policy 2, part c of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. This is due to the development being overly prominent and adversely affecting the character of the surrounding landscape.
R 2. The proposed boundary wall and fence would be contrary to General Policy 2, part f of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. This is due to the development failing to incorporate an existing landscape feature (the sod hedge), which is considered to be a visually important part of the site.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused
Date : ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
