91936

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      23/00438/B                                     Page  1  of  3

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 23/00438/B Applicant : Mr Ross Ollier Proposal : Erection of fence to front and side elevation (retrospective) Site Address : 33 Marathon Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4JB

Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2023 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. By reason of the fence's height and position within the streetscene, the development is considered to be out of keeping within the locality and represents a discordant and incongruous feature within the streetscene and immediate surrounding area. As such, the fencing fails to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan (2016). __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None. __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the property and residential curtilage of 33 Marathon Avenue, Douglas; a two-storey end terraced dwelling situated at the end of the cul-de-sac. A series of garages are located to the immediate east and south-east of the dwelling, whilst a narrow access road passes along the site's eastern boundary connecting Marathon Avenue with another access road at the rear of properties within Marathon Drive.

1.2 When reviewing the wider streetscene, it is noteworthy that close boarded timber fencing of a similar nature has been erected in the front garden areas to two further properties within close proximity to the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      23/00438/B                                     Page  2  of  3

2.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the erection of timber picket fencing along the perimeter of the front garden area extending to a height of 1.8m. The fencing extends above an existing boundary brick/concrete wall which encloses the front garden/patio are on all sides.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 None of relevance.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' in the Area Plan for the East, and is not within a Conservation Area. General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2016 requires development, amongst other things, to be of a suitable design so as to respect the site and its surroundings, whilst not adversely affecting the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council - No objection (25.05.23)

5.2 Highway Services - consider development to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking (12.05.23)

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The erection of the fencing has undoubtedly resulted in a clear visual change to the front of the property, whilst appearing clearly prominent in the context of the immediate streetscene. It is noteworthy that fencing of a similar nature has been erected for 2 no. properties within close proximity to the site, albeit such properties are mid-terraced and therefore the extent of fencing which has been erected is not as pronounced when compared to that within the application site (i.e. along two boundaries). It also does not appear that any planning permissions are in place with respect to the erection of fencing at such properties.

6.2 Moreover, Marathon Avenue slopes downward from west to east, and therefore the fencing as erected within the site appears even more impactful than those in existence further westward within the streetscene. Furthermore, the site effectively constitutes a corner plot with two public facing elevations, and therefore the addition of fencing in this instance poses an even greater impact.

6.3 On balance, such fencing as erected is considered to constitute an incongruous and unduly prominent feature within the immediate streetscene, which has resulted in an oppressive sense of enclosure to the subject property, whilst detracting from the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene.

6.2 Consequently, the development is therefore deemed contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan and represents a discordant and incongruous feature within the streetscene and wider locality.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The development poses a detrimental impact upon the character of the streetscene, and in particular represents a discordant and incongruous feature, contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

8.0 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;

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      23/00438/B                                     Page  3  of  3

(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 in Article 6(4) 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 14.08.2023

Determining officer

Signed : J SINGLETON

Jason Singleton

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 online services/ customers and archive records.