Report on Written Representations Planning Appeal

Site inspection on: 28 February 2011 Appeal by Laxey Village Commissioners against planning approval for: "Erection of fence to delineate public footpath" at Laxey Harbour Chalets, Breeze Hill, Laxey, IM4 7DL.

Introduction

1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and of the development subject to the appeals. The cases for the appeal parties are summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation then follow.

Site and Surroundings

2. The appeal site lies north of the Laxey River and east of Breeze Hill. Several timber holiday chalets stand on the land, with grassed open space between them. A path, signed as a public footpath, leads from a point near the site entrance, initially southwards and then eastwards along a route next to the river bank. The path is surfaced with stone chippings. It continues in a series of zig-zags where steps are provided climbing the nearby cliff slope to the north-east. There is a small concrete slipway at one point south-east of the site on the north bank of the river.
3. The disputed fence is of timber post and rail construction and is between the path just described and the grassed area occupied by holiday chalets. The fence is about 0.75 metres in height. As can be seen from the photographs in the case file, it has three lateral members, the top and bottom ones being level (parallel to the ground) and the middle one set at an angle.

Proposed Development

4. The description of the development in the heading above is quoted from the application. The application sought retrospective planning approval for the construction of the fence which is now in place.

Case for Appellants

5. The Village Commissioners oppose the development on the following main grounds:

• The fence is a blight on the visual amenity of the area, which is of high scenic value and in the Laxey Conservation Area.
• The fence is a visual barrier to the Raad ny Foillan and confuses walkers about whether they can gain access across the Harbour Chalets site.
• The fence restricts access to the slipway and sewerage tanks at the eastern end of the site.

Case for Planning Authority

6. The main points made for the planning authority are, in summary:

• The possible restriction of access caused by the fence is a civil matter between landowners.
• The fence is of standard form considered to be visually acceptable. The height is not excessive and it does not unduly affect the generally open nature of the area.
• The impact on the conservation area is limited; the character and appearance of the area are preserved. The development is considered to meet the requirements of relevant policies in the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan and the Strategic Plan.

Case for Applicants

7. The applicants support the grant of planning approval, in summary on the following main grounds.

• Mr and Mrs Quirk have put a lot of effort into improving the chalet site and the accommodation has won awards, but the general public have assumed that they can wander over it because of the existence of the public footpath. The fence was erected to control trespass and to improve health and safety for guests occupying the chalets.
• The fence was kept to a low level so as not to restrict views across the harbour and sea. Public use of the footpath has not been diminished by the fence.
• The Department of Infrastructure have not raised any problem with access to the sewerage tanks. The slipway is not for public use. The Department of Transport have access rights but the fence has not caused them any concern. Two neighbours have supported the development.

Assessment and Conclusions

8. The main issues raised by this appeal are the visual impact of the fence and its effect on access to or across the immediate area.

9. Since the appeal site is in a designated conservation area and an area of high landscape value, its visual impact is a potentially important consideration. From some viewpoints, the fence is a noticeable feature in the local scene, partly perhaps because it is new and the timber has not weathered. The angled position of the central transverse member tends to give the fence a more "suburban" appearance than would a simpler structure having parallel rails, but that is not a decisive point. The fence is quite low and its open structure does not obstruct views to any great extent.

10. The fence is broadly similar in form to the timber fencing along the footpath where it climbs the nearby cliff slope, although the latter fencing is weathered and partly obscured from view by vegetation. The disputed fence does not enhance the appearance or character of the conservation area; nor does it preserve the area's appearance; but it preserves the area's character and so complies with conservation area policy.

11. No clear, authoritative evidence has been submitted about the route of the public footpath. If the footpath has been diverted without permission, as alleged by some people, that is a matter which may be pursued by the appropriate authority under the

relevant legislation. I can only make an assessment on the available evidence. From the evidence, which does not show that there is a public right of way across the Harbour Chalet site, there does not appear to be anything wrong with the applicants' desire to hinder public access across their private land. The absence of any objection by the highways authority also suggests that the development has not significantly harmed any public interest regarding access. Much the same applies to the effect of the development on any private access rights: the evidence about the existence of such rights is inconclusive, but if such rights have been obstructed there may be reasons for action to be taken under civil law.

12. I conclude that the objections to the development are not sufficient to justify refusing approval, and that the planning authority's decision to grant approval should be confirmed. Condition No 1 is not appropriate to a retrospective approval. Condition No 2 (re-numbered as No 1) would be appropriate as a standard condition in the interests of clarity.

Recommendation

13. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that planning approval be granted subject to the condition just mentioned.

Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI

Inspector

7 March 2011