DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 18/00343/B Applicant: Mr Ryan Denham & Miss Rebecca Quane Proposal: Construction of block wall and alterations to ground level, and boundary fence above (retrospective) Site Address: 1 Creggans Avenue Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1DD Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.03.2024

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Notwithstanding the measurement details shown on Site Plan dated 28/03/2028, all of the fence highlighted yellow shall within 12 months of the date of this decision notice be reduced to a height of 1.53m in accordance with the height and finish details specified on the proposed fence detail drawings dated 20/09/2023 and received by email from the applicant dated 15/09/2023.

Reason: the application has been assessed on this reduced height basis for the entire fence in the interest of visual amenity, and either of the three options proposed for the top finish for the reduced fence panels is considered acceptable.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposed height reduction to the fence is now considered to result in a situation that has a less adverse visual impact on the streetscene and adjacent conservation area as to not significantly detract from the character of the area or to result in any public amenity harm. The application subject to condition relating to the reduced height is considered to be within the bounds of acceptability of the principles of (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and not so at odds with Environment Policy 36 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to:

• - proposed fence drawings and photographs date received by email 15th September 2023;
• - location plan and site plan date stamped and received 29/03/2018
• - site photographs dated 13/03/2018 and 28/03/2018 _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 1 Creggan's Avenue, Peel an existing two storey end terraced dwelling sitting on a corner plot where Creggan's Avenue meets Glenfaba Road. The owners recently erected a block wall and fence within the corner garden facing the roads. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application follows a previous refusal to retain an unlawful fence and block wall. This proposal now seeks to reduce the height of the previously refused fence in trying to reduce the visual impact. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There have been four previous planning applications approved for the site relating to a detached store (17/00285/B), a rear extension (03/01859/B), creation of a rear parking area (02/00085/B) and most relevant in this case PA 17/01212/B.

3.2 PA 17/01212/B sought retrospective approval for the erection of the fence (without the now proposed reductions) this was refused on two grounds:

• R1 - The proposed fence by reason of its height, position, design and material finish does not respect the site and its surroundings and brings about an unwarranted intrusion to the visual quality and character of the street scene and as such fails to comply with parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2.
• R2 - The proposed fence by reason of its height, position, design and material finish adversely impacts the character and views into and out of the adjacent Peel Conservation Area failing to meet Environment Policy 36.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated as 'residential' on the Peel Local Plan 1989 and adjacent to the Peel Conservation Area. Given the nature of the retrospective works proposed it is relevant to consider a number of parts of General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 along with Environment Policy 36. In addition to which we must also take into consideration the levels of development which can be carried out under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (PDO) without the need for planning approval.

4.2 General Policy 2 (in part): "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;

g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; 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."

4.3 Environment Policy 36: Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area." - 4.4 PDO - 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.

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

5.1 Peel Town Commissioners - no objections (21/05/2018).

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (14/05/2018).

5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The site sits on a prominent corner plot which bounds a public highway on three sides, and also along one of the main routes leading into the centre of Peel. Stone and low level masonry walls mostly characterise the immediate area, with additional hedging/trees forming part of the boundary treatment of some properties.

6.2 The 2017 fence application concluded that due to the setback position of the fence that highway safety was not an issue and this remains the case now.

6.3 2017 application concluded that by reason of the significant height of the fence being at an elevated level on the block wall and its timer material not being typical in this area exacerbating the negative impact that the fence detrimentally impacted the quality and appearance of the streetscene and bringing harm to the adjacent Conservation Area. The fact the back of the fence also faced the road making the visual harm worse.

6.4 The key tests in the assessment of this revised application is whether or not the reduction to the height of the fence overcomes any of the previous reasons for refusal so as to be considered acceptable. - 6.5 It is clear that the material of the fence remains in timber and its construction with the 'back' of the fence facing the road remains unchanged and so both these parts still weigh against the proposal. The difference now is that the fence is being reduced from 1.8m to 1.53m and this reduction helps towards minimising its visual prominence and drawing less attention to it which weighs in favour of the proposal. The works will see the fence reduce to

• just above the top rail with a number of different options provided for the finish any of which would be acceptable here. These fencing works also include the reduction to the bulkier fencing pillars visible from the roadside elevations and this also helping to reduce the overall bulk and prominence.
• 6.6 The reduction to the fence height not only reduces the prominence in its own right, but its reduced height and bulk is likely to draw less negative attention to it within the streetscene. The timber material and construction design is also likely to be less of an impact due to the reduced height and bulk.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed fence by reason of its reduced height which now reduced the visual impact of the works to an acceptable degree is considered to be within the bounds of acceptability and not so visually harmful as to harm general public amenity nor to significantly detract from the adjacent Conservation Area. The proposed fence by reason of its reduced height is considered to be within the bounds of the principles of (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and not so at odds with Environment Policy 36 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 02.04.2024 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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 online services/customers and archive records.