Loading document...
Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing former church building situated on the north eastern side of Malew Street around 120m from The Parade. The building is used as offices. The building is an interesting and handsome building, finished in dressed stone in regular, rectangular blocks and with vertically proportioned windows. The front entrance to the building is via a set of eleven stone steps set back from the highway. The area to the front of the building is finished in tarmacadam with the pedestrian entrance demarcated by red quarry tiles on each side of the walkway to the steps. The space on each side of the steps is used for car parking, comfortably accommodating five or six full length cars.
1.2 The property to the north is a residential dwelling - 36, Malew Street - a traditional Manx cottage finished in render with its frontage flush with Malew Street. To the south is 30, Malew Street, another rendered, traditional residential property with its frontage flush with the street.
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a fence along the boundary with 36, Malew Street. This will be 2m high and comprises vertical round topped timbers and extends down the side of number 36 and to within 11m of the rear boundary. Also proposed is the erection of five black painted metal bollards in front of three of the parking spaces either side of the entrance steps. No information has been provided to explain why either feature is required.
2.2 Further to discussions with the applicant, they have revised the proposal to have fencing only along the rear part of the boundary, from the rear of the adjacent dwelling and to provide some privacy for both sets of occupants.
3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013. The site also lies within Castletown's Conservation Area. The critical policies to be applied in this case are Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan which states:
"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special
| Application No.: | 14/01293/B |
| Applicant: | Mr I P W Shipley |
| Proposal: | Erection of timber fence down side of building and erection of bollards with chains to front of property |
| Site Address: | 32 -34 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man |
features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
3.2 This echoes the advice provided in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in respect of land within Conservation Areas.
4.1 The building was converted to offices under PA 97/01109/B from a former furniture storage area. Since then there have been applications for alterations to the building which are not considered relevant to the consideration of the current application.
4.2 PA 11/00090/B proposed the erection of bollards, metal panels and chains to parking area which was a retrospective application. This was refused initially and at appeal for the following reason:
"The panels, chains and posts are utilitarian in appearance and out of character with the building in front of which they have been erected and the Conservation Area in which they are sited. They do not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and as such contravene Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man Policy CA/2".
4.3 That application was for grey metal posts and chains which are different from those now proposed. The inspector noted that the bollards were of a lesser quality than the bollards installed elsewhere in the town, referring specifically to The Parade. The proposed fence enclosure was for a bin store which was considered to be an inappropriate design to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area (his paragraph 18).
5.1 Castletown Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application (18.12.14) as does the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services (04.12.14).
5.2 The owners of 36, Malew Street object to the proposal (26.12.15) on the basis that they see no need for the fencing or bollards. They state that they are entitled to store their wheeled bin in the alcove and can reach this without trespass and they have no other access to the rear garden for them or refuse collectors. They explain that they had in the past erected a fence on their side of the rear boundary to protect their amenities but the applicant's trees now overhang to such an extent that they have limited light and outlook. They consider that stone walls which are more in character, would be more acceptable. They also express concern about how the fencing will be fixed in place, and do not want to see any damage to their property including the old stone wall which marks the boundary of their property. They found the previously unauthorised chains to be noisy and note that the applicant does not live in the property so is unaware and unaffected by the noise made. They believe that the original refusal is still valid.
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (04.12.15).
6.1 The amended proposal for a reduced amount of fencing will limit the view of the fencing to largely out of view and it is not unreasonable to have some form of boundary treatment between properties. As such, this element of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.
6.2 The bollards are different from those which were refused previously in that they have a colour compared with that and sit more comfortably with the street furniture in the rest of the town.
6.3 The applicant has responded to the issues raised by the neighbours (26.01.15) and suggests that the recessed area belongs to the neighbour but has no right of way to this area. The fence position has been changed to accommodate this and no longer encloses this area. They explain that the fence is intended to provide privacy to the rear garden of the property and will not cause any damage to the neighbours' property. They do not believe that the chains will cause a problem with noise nuisance due to their distance from the neighbouring property.
6.3 It is considered that the proposal overcomes the concerns raised with the previous application and what is now proposed will complement the Conservation Area and is considered acceptable. The fence is a development which, were the property not within a Conservation Area, could be erected without planning permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012. As such the issues regarding neighbourhoods and impact on the neighbours' living conditions are considered acceptable in principle: the fact that the property does lie within a Conservation Area is not considered relevant to the assessment of the impact on the neighbours' amenities and is not particularly prominent from the Conservation Area. Issues of fixing to the neighbours' property are more civil issues than ones for the planning process.
6.4 The application is recommended for approval.
7.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
7.3 The owners of 36, Malew Street are adjacent to the site and as such should be afforded interested person status in this case.
| Recommendation | |
|---|---|
| Recommended Decision: | Permitted |
| Date of Recommendation: | 30.01.2015 |
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
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.
This approval relates to drawing 1202-100 received on 12th November, 2014 and 1202-101A received on 9th December, 2014.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 27.01.2015
Signed : ... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed : ... Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : ... Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown