Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE NUMBER OF WRITTEN OBJECTIONS.
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of North Lodge, Cronkbourne, Braddan which is a detached dwelling situated to the southern side of the highway. There is an area of private woodland to the rear of the dwelling which is also within the ownership of the applicant. The area of woodland runs parallel to Hollin Lane which is part of the Tromode Woods Housing Estate. The area of private woodland acts as a boundary to the Tromode Woods Estate. The application site runs parallel with the footpath which provides access into the estate from the Ballafletcher Road. On the adjacent side of the footpath is 14 Hollin Lane.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a boundary fence between North Lodge and the footpath adjacent to 14 Hollin Lane. The fence would be approximately 40.2m in length and would be 2m in height at its highest and lowering to approximately 1m at its point closest to Ballafletcher Road. The fence would be solid vertical boarded fencing which would be dark green in colour. Part of the fencing which would be furthest from Ballafletcher Road would have trellising above. The trellising would be cream in colour.
3.1 The following previous applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
PA 13/00038/B Erection of fencing (part retrospective) - this application was refused for the following reason:
"By reason of its scale, form and design the proposed fencing would have a harmful impact upon the open character of the site and surrounding locality which would be contrary to General Policy 2 part b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
PA 14/00198/B Erection of fencing (part retrospective) - this application was refused for the following reason:
"By reason of its scale, form and design the proposed fencing would have a harmful impact upon the open character of the site and surrounding locality which would be contrary to General Policy 2 part b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."
4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" the other part is zoned as "Woodland" identified on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 3 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
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:
a) Is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; 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; d) Does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) Does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) Incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) Provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) Does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) Can be provided with all necessary services; k) Does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) Is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) Takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; n) Is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
Development will not be permitted when it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity of conservation value.
5.1 Highway Services do not oppose in a letter received 10th September 2014. 5.2 Braddan Commissioners has no objections in a letter received 29th September 2014. 5.3 The owner/occupier of 11 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the application. In summary they comment that applications have been refused on two previous occasions. They feel that the fence should be removed. They also comment that the yellow notice has not been sited in an obvious place. These comments were in a letter received 10th September 2014.
5.4 The owner/occupier of 20 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that they are affected when entering and leaving the estate on foot. They feel that the fence is out of keeping with the character of the rest of the estate. They support the opposition of the other residents. These comments were in a letter received 8th September 2014
5.5 The owner/occupier of 21 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects, they note that the fence has already been turned down twice, nothing has changed and it is not in keeping with the area. It would then set a precedent for it to be extended further along Hollin Lane. These comments were in a letter received 8th September 2014.
5.6 The owner/occupier of 40 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. The objector makes comment on the enforcement procedure and lack of action to remove the fence. They feel that despite reducing the length of the fence it is still wholly not fitting with the wooded area, estate and surrounding area. They feel that it would be better suited as a prison perimeter fence. They have no objection to a standard wooden post and rail and board fence. These commented were in a letter received 9th September 2014.
5.7 The owner/occupier of Purt Ny Shee, 14 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the application. In summary they feel that there is no change from the previous application. They note that they are not aware of an amendment to planning policy or the strategic plan in the meantime and therefore the application must fail for the same reason. They also feel that the fence is out of keeping with the area and North Lodge which they believe is a Baillie-Scott designed building. They feel that it is visually damaging and detracts significantly from the surroundings. They feel that a rustic timber fence would be more in keeping. The difference in levels between Tromode Woods and North Lodge mean that the visual impact viewed from North Lodge side is even more significant. They also make comment on the land ownership. They note that the application is "approval in principle on the form" and also "retrospective". They feel that the application is substantially the same as the previously refused applications and that the Department should not consider it. This would sterilise applications for the same development for a period of five years. These comments were in a letter received 10th September 2014.
5.8 The owner/occupier of 35 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal as it was erected without permission, it is out of keeping and it would set a precedent to extend in to the remaining area. These comments were in a letter received 14th September 2014.
5.9 Hartford Homes objects for the reasons that the application does not state that the planning application is for retrospective planning approval, the application is not for approval in principle. They also site the reason for refusal of the previous applications and that if the application was approved it would go against the previous planning decision PA 14/00198/B and would set a precedence for the applicant to seek planning approval for the same style of fencing around the remainder of the land. They also raise land ownership concerns. These comments were in a letter received 15th September 2014.
5.10 The owner/occupier of 12 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal as they feel that the fence is out of keeping for a residential area and feel that it would be more appropriate for an industrial estate/prison yard or zoo. The previous applications were refused and they feel that the fencing has not changed under this application. They feel that the fence conflicts with the pattern of development and is visually damaging to the landscape and setting. They purchased the property due to an open landscape woodland setting minutes away from the town. They also have concerns regarding land ownership. They note that the applicant is not a permanent resident and by way of the duplicate application is damaging the character of the area. These comments were in a letter received 19th September 2014.
5.11 The owner/occupier of 16 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the application for the same reasons that refusal has already been issued on two previous occasions. They feel that planning permission could set a precedent for the erection of the same fencing around the other land. These comments were in a letter received 22nd September 2014.
5.12 The owner/occupier of 15 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the application as they feel that the application is contrary to General Policy 2 part b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in respect of the layout, scale, form and design and it adversely affects the character of the surrounding landscape. They feel that the fencing is more in keeping with an industrial unit/secure building. They also query the land ownership, the fence has been refused twice before and yet this application is for the same fence. They feel that their status was considered minimal and that the applicant has been given preferred status. They also set out the timeline of the applications to date and their outcomes in terms of planning and enforcement. These comments were in a letter received 23rd September 2014.
5.13 The application was submitted as an Approval In Principle. The applicant's agent confirmed this was an error and the application has been treated as a full application.
6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of fencing along the western boundary of the site. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are whether the application is substantially different from the previous applications, the impact upon the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in general, the impact upon the woodland and the impact upon the amenities of the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
6.2 The application proposes the erection of a fence approximately 40.2m in length and 2m in height at its highest point stepping down in height towards Ballafletcher Road. The fence would be constructed of solid coated steel panels; three of the panels which are sited furthest from the Ballafletcher Road have cream trellising above. The previous application proposed the erection of a fence along the entire western boundary including the area of woodland to the rear of the dwelling, the length of the fencing would have been approximately 139m. Given that the application now proposes a significantly reduced length of fencing it is considered that the application is substantially different from those previous applications and therefore it should be assessed.
6.3 There are a number of objections relating to the ownership of the land. It should be noted that the land ownership is a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.
6.4 While the applicant has not provided supporting information, they indicated in the previous application that the fence was for security in order to prevent fly-tipping and people damaging the woodland by lopping trees.
6.5 In terms of public safety, there was concern that the fencing may result in anti-social behaviour, however, as mentioned in the previous application the Architectural Liaison Officer advises that they have no objection in relation to the proposed fencing. The fence would create a 'non-permeable' boundary which would be in line with the advice that he would have given.
6.6 The Tromode Woods estate already has fencing dividing up the sites, however this is generally of timber construction. The estate is fairly open in character and the boundary of the estate is marked by the existing woodland. It is considered that the proposed location of the fence at points B to C is different in character to the remaining area of woodland. The woodland area provides the open character to the estate and by erecting a solid fence along this boundary it is considered that it would detrimentally effect the character and appearance of the site as identified by the previous application outcomes PA 13/00038/B and PA
14/00198/B. The length between points B to C is adjacent to the public footpath and on the opposite side of the footpath on the boundary of 14 Hollin Lane there is a timber fence which is similar in height to that proposed under the current application. Whilst the proposed fence is metal and is solid in construction it is judged that this would not significantly affect the character and appearance of this area or the street scene in general, given that this particular length of fencing would largely be visible from the public footpath and would not be a dominant feature within the rest of Tromode Woods. It is judged that this relatively short length of fencing would not unduly alter the overall character and appearance of Tromode Woods.
6.7 The setting of North Lodge is important as the building is of architectural and historic importance, however it is not Registered. The building is attractive within its woodland setting and is most visible from Ballafletcher Road travelling in a westerly direction. Given the siting of the proposed fencing it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the setting of North Lodge.
6.8 The reduction in height of the fence to approximately 1m adjacent to the Ballafletcher Road significantly reduces the visual impact when travelling along the highway as both a vehicle driver and as a pedestrian.
6.9 The closest property to the proposed fence is 14 Hollin Lane. The proposed fencing would be visible from this property as the fence is slightly higher than the fencing on the boundary of 14 Hollin Lane, however, given that the fencing would not be significantly higher it is considered that the proposed fencing would not appear unduly overbearing or result in the undue loss of light when viewed from 14 Hollin Lane. It is judged that the proposed fence would be a sufficient distance from the remaining properties in Tromode Woods and would not adverse affect outlook or appear overbearing when viewed from these properties.
6.10 The application does not propose the removal of any trees as part of the application, however it should be noted that there appears to have been considerable lopping of the existing trees within the area outlined in blue on the site/location plan.
6.11 For the above reasons the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
7.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, Highway Services, and the Local Authority, Braddan Commissioners in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
7.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
7.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient
interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The Planning Committee refused the application as they felt that the fencing was out of keeping and resulted in an incongruous addition to the site and surrounding area. It was refused for the following reason:
R1. Due to its design, materials and colour, the fence is an unattractive and incongruous feature detrimental to the visual appearance of the area which is contrary to General Policy 2 part b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
The Planning Officer provided a verbal update regarding an objection which was received 22nd September 2014 from the owners/occupiers of 17 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods. They are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 06.10.2014
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Due to its design, materials and colour, the fence is an unattractive and incongruous feature detrimental to the visual appearance of the area which is contrary to General Policy 2 part b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refunds Committee Meeting Date : 15/18/14
Signed : [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown