Demolition of stone wall and erection of fencing and ground works (Retrospective)
Site Address:
10 Church Lane Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1AW
Case Officer:
Miss S E Corlett
Photo Taken:
30.10.2012
Site Visit:
30.10.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Officer Delegation
The Site
The site defined in red is said to be the residential curtilage of an existing end of terraced property, 10, Church Lane which lies to the west of Church Lane which wraps around the old St. Peter's Church site.
The property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling which has a garden to the south of the property. This was originally bounded by a stone wall which has now been supplemented by timber fencing. The lane stops at this property and becomes absorbed into the rear garden. The fencing across the entrance to the property can be seen from Church Lane. The fencing cannot be seen from Lake Lane itself.
The Proposal
Proposed is retrospective permission for the erection of fencing and a drain in the garden. The fencing is horizontal hit and miss fencing which stands approximately a metre from the ground and provides additional height to the boundary wall. The fencing also stretches full height across the lane with a pedestrian gate within it. The fencing is to run down the eastern side of the garden.
Planning Status And Policy
The site lies within an area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989. The site also lies within Peel's Conservation Area.
As such, the following Strategic Plan policy is considered relevant:
"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 features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
Planning History
Planning permission was granted for the replacement of windows under PA 08/0949 and a satellite dish was permitted under PA 93/01697. Some of the other properties in the terrace have been the subject of applications for replacement windows and doors and some extensions, none of which is considered relevant in this case.
Representations
The owner of 6, Lake Lane objects to the application on the basis that the fencing is out of keeping with the Conservation Area. He also raises concern about the gradual loss of trees within the site.
Peel Town Commissioners consider that the fencing is out of keeping with the Conservation Area and also express concern that the lane is adopted and should not be incorporated into the application site.
The owners of 8, Lake Lane object to the application on the basis that there is already a wall in place and that the fencing is unsightly and they believe that the fence has been erected over a right of way.
Highways Division indicate that the proposal does not have any adverse traffic or highway impact.
Assessment
The fencing is partly visible from the top of Church Lane and as one proceeds down what is confirmed as a public highway towards the side, the top of the fence is also visible above the stone wall alongside. The fencing is very much visually out of keeping with the mainly stone wall boundary treatment in the vicinity.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture have confirmed that permits have been issued for the felling of 3 sycamores in April 2010 and recently (July 2012) the applicant sought advice about pruning back a tree overhanging his property. The removal of the trees, whilst authorised draws more attention to things like the boundary treatment which makes the fencing all the more apparent.
The site lies within Peel’s Conservation Area and as such it is important that the character of the area is preserved and small changes, such as the introduction of modern timber fencing can reduce the value of that character. As such the application is recommended for refusal.
Whilst a number of parties have suggested that the lane is adopted, the Highway Authority has confirmed that it is not.
Party Status
The local authority, Peel Town Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The owners of 6 and 8, Lake Lane are adjacent to the site and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic 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 05.11.2012
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 fencing is visible from public vantage points and appears above the height of the existing adjacent walling. The fencing appears out of keeping with the surrounding area, which is a designated Conservation Area and as such is contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Refused Date: 5/11/12
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed: [Handwritten signature] Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer
Signed: [Blank] Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed: [Blank] Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed: [Blank] Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
