Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00879/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 22/00879/B Applicant : Mr Alasdair Birnie Proposal Erection of fencing to side front garden (partial retrospective) Site Address Thornhill Highfield Drive Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6EE
Case Officer :
Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
01.12.2022 Site Visit :
26.04.2023 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 09.06.2023
Conditions of Approval
C : Reasons for Refusal N : Notes attached to reasons
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to the documents, supporting letter, location plan and photos which have been received on 18th July 2022; planning statement which has been received on 6th March; and drawing no.1, 2 and visualisation 01 which have been received on 24th May 2023.
Approval Reason: The proposed fence fits in with the topography of the driveway. While having stronger contrast with the retaining wall when compared to the existing, the timber colour will bleach out and the stepping-down fence will also reduce this contrast. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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):
Owners/Occupiers of Emscote, Highfield Drive, Baldrine
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
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00879/B Page 2 of 6
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Owners/Occupiers of Jura, Highfield Drive, Baldrine
as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C 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. __
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is Thornhill, Highfield Drive, a detached dwelling located on the northwest of Highfield Drive.
1.2 Highfield Drive is a D-shaped residential area consists of only detached houses. The area is slope down from the south to north and from west to east. Houses on the west side of Highfield Drive generally is on a level higher than of the road.
1.3 Most house has a front garden between the road and the house and many has a driveway. The boundary treatment between two houses (at the front of the house) is usually hedges, with varying height between 1m to 2m. There are also a few sites separated with timber fences.
1.4 Thornhill is elevated from the road. There is an elevated front garden gradually stepping up from the road to the house and a driveway leading from the road up to the house.
1.5 The neighbouring property bound northeast of the site is Emscote. Emscote is also elevated from the road. It has an elevated front garden and a walkway leading up to the property. However, there is also a driveway sunken from the level of the house but is on the same level as the road. This driveway bounds with the driveway of the application site.
1.6 From the application site to the Emscote, the current boundary transition is as the following: sloped driveway - partial proposed fence - exiting fence - retaining wall - flat driveway.
1.7 The height of the retaining wall follows the slope of the driveway on the applicant's site. The highest point of the retaining wall is about halfway of the driveway on the applicant's side. The existing timber fence is on the retaining wall and runs alone the highest level of the retaining wall. This section of the fence is approx. 1-1.2m high above the driveway. When the existing fence runs closer to the houses, its height increase to approx. 1.8m.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed is the installation of a timber fence just southwest of the existing timber fence. The proposed fences runs alone the driveway parallel of the exiting fence and the retaining wall, from the end of the lowest point of the retaining wall to the front elevation of the existing side extension. The proposed fencing will has incremental height from the bottom of the drive to the top.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00879/B Page 3 of 6
2.2 Part of the fence has already been built and therefore the application is partially retrospective. The final proposal plans to reduce the height of a part of the already installed fence.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Creation of a driveway and vehicular access to dwelling house was APPROVED for Emscote under PA 13/90985/B. The current retaining wall and sunken driveway of Emscote fit partially with this approval.
4.0 Planning Policy Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 3, 5 o General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g), (m)
PPS and NPD 4.3 There is no planning policy statement or national policy directive considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 Residential Design Guide July 2021 contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 6.1 Boundary Treatments
6.0 REPRESENTATION 6.1 Garff Commissioners objects to this application (12.05.2023). The comment considers that the proposed fence would "have an unacceptable visual impact that will be detrimental to other residents who live near the property" and be "highly detrimental intrusion into the Highfield Drive streetscene". The comment also considers the fence would be out of character with the rest of the frontages in the area and have harmful effect of the character of the estate. The comment also notes that it is unlikely that any colour or shade would be sufficient to mitigate this negative impact on the street scene.
6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (30.05.2023).
6.3 DoI Highway Drainage alert the applicant that no surface water should be allowed to be discharged onto a public highway (17.05.2023).
6.4 Owners/Occupiers of Jura and Emscote, Highfield Drive wrote in objection to this application (07.10.2022 - 28.03.2023). The comments include material planning considerations can be summarised (in no particular order) as the following: o the fence is not in keep with surrounding properties o overshadowing o outlook
6.5 The points made from the above representations which would not be a material consideration in planning terms can be summarised (in no particular order) as the following: o fence height in relation to the Permitted Development Order o (partially) retrospective nature of the application o setting precedence
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00879/B Page 4 of 6
o damage to soakaway of the retention wall (private rights) o ownership of the existing fence o boundary dispute o view
7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment 7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are its impact on the character and appearance of the area and on the amenities of the neighbours.
Character and Appearance of the Area 7.2 Most properties on Highfield Drive have some sort of boundary treatment with their neighbours at the front of the house. This is commonly in the form of hedges. However, there are a few properties that has timber fences alone the boundary, although these fences are mostly next to neighbouring hedges.
7.3 The proposed fences is on the northwest side of the driveway, next to the existing timber fence. While the fence is higher than the existing one, it is stepping down gradually from the top of the driveway to the bottom, following the topography of the site.
7.4 The most prominent part of the proposed fence will be the top section as it is also the highest part. The top section of the fence is approx. 1.8m tall. In the finalised proposal, this tallest section is considered to have a similar visual impact of that of the tallest part of the existing fence. Therefore, the top section of the fence is considered to not have a negative impact on the character of the area.
7.5 The other sections of the fence will drop in height following the slope of the driveway. While this is higher than the existing fences and the retaining wall, the rhythm of the fences matches the slope of the driveway. Therefore. The other sections of the fences is considered to not have a negative impact on the character of the area.
7.6 Viewing the fences as a whole, its fresh timber colour does stand out from the surroundings. However, it is considered that the colour will bleach out naturally like the existing fence and this is not considered to be a sufficient reason for recommending refusal.
7.7 An important argument made by the objectors is that the area has an open character and the proposed fence is contrary to this character. However, given section 1 and paragraph 7.2, the sense of openness is created from the front garden and the existing boundary treatments around the area does not reduce this sense of openness. It is considered that one timber fence will not change this openness character either.
7.8 This being said, when view from south to north, the proposed fence is more prominent than viewing from north to south. This is because of the contrast of the level from the bottom of the neighbouring driveway to the top of the highest point of the proposed fence and the white colour of the wall contrasting the timber colour of the fence. However, the gradually stepping down fence mitigate some of these contrast and it is considered that this is not a sufficient reason for recommending refusal.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.9 The proposed fence is close to a front elevation window of Emscote. However, view is not a material planning consideration and partial outlook of a timber fence is not a sufficient reason for recommending refusal. Therefore, the proposed fence is considered to have a reasonable impact on neighbour's outlook and this impact does not mount to overbearing.
7.8 The proposed fence is southwest of Emscote. However, its highest point is only 1.8m and this is not considered to have an overshadowing impact on the neighbouring properties.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00879/B Page 5 of 6
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed fence fit in with the topography of the driveway. While having stronger contrast with the retaining wall when compared to the existing, the timber colour will bleach out and the stepping-down fence will also reduce this contrast. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 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 which 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.
9.2 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. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...19.06.2023
Signed :...P SHEN... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00879/B Page 6 of 6
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 19.06.2023
PA No 22/00879/B Applicant Mr Alasdair Birnie Proposal Erection of fencing to side front garden (partial retrospective) Site Address Thornhill Highfield Drive Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6EE Planning Officer Mr Peiran Shen Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report
The Planning Committee overturned the Officers recommendation and determined to refuse the application for the following reason;
The proposed fence is considered to be too high resulting in an overbearing and negative impact to the streetscene and the neighbouring property.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal