SOC DEFA Planning Officer Report

STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to: Increase the height of a section of existing fencing 2 St Marys Glebe Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5PF PA Reference 21/00147/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Authority by Planning Officer Mr Nick Salt Department of Environment Food and Agriculture, Planning & Building Control, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Email [email protected]. Tel 01624 685950

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to the curtilage of 2 St Marys Glebe in Port St Mary, a detached bungalow within a small culdesac on the edge of the settlement. There is a garden to the rear with retaining walls and a 1.6m - 1.8m timber fence above at the north east boundary with 1 Fistard Grove - a two storey dwelling which has recently been extended to the rear. - 1.2 1 Fistard Grove sits higher at ground level than 2 St Marys Glebe, reflecting the topography of the area. The side path to 1 Fistard Grove sits higher at the rear of that property than the front.

1.2 The site is not within any Conservation Area and does not relate to a Registered Building. - 2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is an extension to the fence along the boundary between the application site (2 St Marys Glebe) and the neighbouring property to the north east (1 Fistard Grove). The fence as proposed would be 2.8m high, an increase of between 1.2m and 1m. - 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on Area Plan for the South 2013. As such, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is the key policy in the conderation of this application.

3.2 GP2 states that 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; and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.

3.3 DEFA's Residential Design Guidance (2019) is a material consideration. Section 6.1 deals specifically with boundary treatments. It notes that boundary features to the side and rear boundaries can generally be higher (2m) without causing concerns.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 19/00351/B - Erection extension above existing garage and single storey extension at the rear of property. APPROVED May 2019. This extension has now been constructed to the rear of 1 Fistard Grove. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 DOI Highways state that there is no highways interest this application (10.03.21).

5.2 Port St Mary Commissioners object to the proposal (25.02.21) stating: "Objections were raised as the application goes against current planning rules for fence heights. The Board felt the proposed height of the fence would be overbearing and antisocial for neighbouring property." - 5.3 2 letters have been received in objection to the proposal from 1 Fistard Grove (letter received 21.02.21), and 2 Fistard Grove (letter received 02.03.21). The following reasons were cited:

• o Existing natural screening was removed
• o Fence as proposed inappropriate to the area

• o There are limited views into the site as existing
• o Overshadowing
• o Overbearing
• o 2m height would be more appropriate

It should be noted that matters relating to the lack of objection to any previous planning application and to the removal of previous planting to the boundary are not considered specifically materially relevant to the determination of this planning application.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are:

• o the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider street scene;
• o Impact on residential amenity.

6.2 Visual Impact

• 6.2.1 The fence in question would not be readily visible from the street scene as existing or proposed, as it is situated along the side boundary to the rear garden of the site. It would be partially visible from the Fistard Grove cul-de-sac but given its location would have a negligible impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, and the site itself.
• 6.2.2 With regard to visual impact, the proposal accords with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.
• 6.3 Residential Amenity

• 6.3.1 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan requires that development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents. How these impacts are assessed is detailed in the DEFA Residential Design Guidance. The guidance sets out the three key considerations in relation to impact on neighbours:

• - Overlooking (loss of privacy)
• - Overbearing (loss of outlook, oppressive impact)
• - Overshadowing (loss of sunlight). This proposal is for an increase in height to a boundary fence and therefore the impact of any resulting overshadowing or overbearing is considered.

• 6.3.2 The fence would be 2.8m in height and close to the southwest side elevation of 1 Fistard Grove. The impact on 1 Fistard Grove is the key consideration in terms of amenity given the location of the fence. There are three windows to this elevation which face southwest. The applicant has raised concerns over loss of privacy and overlooking into their garden from the largest of the windows, on the recently extended part of 1 Fistard Grove.
• 6.3.3 The applicant has provided a measurement showing the line of sight at a 25 degree angle. This measures from the top of the window which is not considered a likely eye-level. A view from 2/3 the way up the window would provide reduced views into the rear garden of 2 St Marys Glebe. A site visit showed that, at an average eye-line level, there is currently some degree of overlooking into the rear garden of 2 St Marys Glebe. It is however considered that this could be negated via a modest extension to the fence - to 2m metres in total.
• 6.3.4 The height of the fence as proposed would block access to natural light to the extension window on the southwestern elevation of 1 Fistard Grove, and would provide an oppressive and overbearing feature for any users of the utility path along the side of that property.

• 6.3.3 It is noted that under the Permitted Development Order Class 16, the erection or alteration of fences, walls or gates within, or on the boundary of, the curtilage of a dwellinghouse can be undertaken without the need for planning approval (outside of a Conservation Area). There are conditions on this. When applied to this site and the boundary in question, a fence could be erected with a height of up to 2m without a requirement for formal planning approval. This would in effect be a 0.2 - 0.4m increase on the existing fence.

• 6.3.2 In summary, the fence as proposed would result in overbearing and overshadowing on the side elevation extension window of 1 Fistard Grove, insomuch as to outweigh the increased privacy for 2 St Marys Glebe - which could reasonably be achieved by a 2m fence erected under permitted development. As such, the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (g) of the IOMSP in regard to residential amenity.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the fence as proposed would be of an excessive height which would harm the existing residential amenity enjoyed by the occupants of 1 Fistard Grove by virtue of overshadowing and overbearing impacts. - 7.2 The applicant is advised that an increase to a 2m fence height, as permissible under permitted development, would limit any such impacts.

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;
• (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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article (4(2)):

• 1 Fistard Grove, Port St Mary

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2)):

• 2 Fistard Grove, Port St Mary

As it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

The reasons and notes (if any) related to the Department’s original refusal

R 1. The 2.8 metre height of the fence as proposed would be of an excessive height and proximity to the southwest elevation windows of 1 Fistard Grove. This would result in harm to the existing residential amenity enjoyed by the occupants of 1 Fistard Grove by virtue of a loss of light into the property and an overbearing and oppressive impact on outlook from the side of that dwelling and the access path along the boundary. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.