**Document:** Officer Report **Application:** 16/01342/B — New front boundary wall and vehicular access. **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2017-01-11 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/21835-braddan-dreem-ard/documents/1017137 --- # Officer Report **Application No.:** 16/01342/B **Applicant:** Mrs Pauline Birnie **Proposal:** New front boundary wall and vehicular access. **Site Address:** Dreem Ard Ballanard Road Douglas Isle of Man IM2 5PR Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley **Photo Taken:** 04.01.2017 **Site Visit:** 04.01.2017 **Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation ## Officer’s Report 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling situated to the west of Ballanard Road in Douglas. 'Dreem Ard', in common with many of the dwellings on the western side of the highway, sits lower than the road and is screened from it by the presence of prominent, manmade boundary treatment - here in the form of 1m-high panelled fencing above a 1m-high sod bank. To the north is the existing highway access to the site, which is formed of a pair of pillars connected by a lower wall, all comprised of yellow/brown stonework; to the south is another, much smaller element of similar blockwork, forming a single pillar and 1.2m of walling. - 1.2 The sod bank continues westwards behind the fencing - there are some robust hedge plants within the bank behind the fencing that are just about visible. While once the planting was such as to obscure much of the view of the house itself, it has since been cut back. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the removal of the fence and sod bank and their replacement with a stone wall to match the existing; to the southern end of the site is proposed a new highway access, which would provide the dwelling with a second access. The wall would be roughly 1.5m in height, but as the site slopes slightly there are four different steps down between these lengths of walling. - 2.2 The new walling would be a minimum of 2.0m back from the kerb of the road. - 2.3 Although an incomplete visibility splay drawing has been provided, the proposed site plan states that 65m can be provided 2.2m back from the highway to the north, with "200m+" apparently achievable to the south. - 2.4 There is some discrepancy between the stated dimensions and the measurements that can be taken from the submitted drawings - for example, the annotated 2.2m is, when measured with a scale rule, in fact 2.1m. This discrepancy is not considered sufficient on which to require amended plans to be provided. For clarity, the report that follows refers to the written measurements where these exist (they do not in respect of the distance of the walling from the highway kerb). 3.0 THE PROPOSAL 16/01342/B Page 1 of 5 3.1 There are no applications that have been submitted on the application site that are considered to be material to the assessment of this scheme. - 3.2.1 However, a very similar application was submitted at a dwelling called 'Bretney', situated roughly 100m north of the application site (five houses along), and the assessment of this application is worth noting. PA 15/00469/B sought approval for "Widening of vehicular access onto highway, improvements to turning area and replace existing hedge with blockwork wall and timber front boundary fence". - 3.2.2 In noting the two main issues in the case as being those of highway safety and visual impact, the case officer commented on the latter as follows: "The streetscene is characterised by a mix of walling and hedging and without doubt the appearance of the area is enhanced, particularly as one proceeds towards the edge of the settlement, by boundary treatment being formed by hedging and greenery rather than more solid walling or fencing. In this case the neighbouring boundaries are formed by walling and what is proposed now is little different so will not be visually intrusive." ## - 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan 1998 as Residential. - 4.2 As such, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan applies: "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 space around them; - (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; - (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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highway". ## - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 On 20.12.2016, Highway Services of the DoI commented as follows: "The proposal is to create a new boundary wall along the front of the site and create a new vehicular access. "The proposal will provide adequate visibility splays. "Highway Services does not oppose this application." ## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Similarly to the application submitted recently at Bretney, the issues here relate to highway safety and visual impact. 16/01342/B Page 2 of 5 6.2 In respect of the latter issue, the case officer's view as applied to the Bretney scheme equally applies here. There can be little doubt that natural boundary treatment is preferable. This is evidenced by the extensive and natural appearance of the eastern side of the highway. However, and again similarly to PA 15/00469/B, the boundary treatment north and south is primarily in the form of fencing and walling, and it is considered that the walling proposed here would continue that trend. Indeed, the proposed wall would actually be lower than the existing bank / hedge combination such that the hedging behind would become more visible than the current situation, and this modest but noticeable increase in greenery is judged to be a positive in the overall balance, even if the loss of a sod bank must be lamented. - 6.3 With regards highway safety, the conclusions reached by Highway Services are logical and there does not appear to be any reason to go against that view. It is not considered that a condition is required in this instance, as the visibility splay is achieved entirely on land within the control of the DoI. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: - o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; - o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; - o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and - o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.01.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. The development hereby approved relates to Drawing B/991/1(A), date-stamped as having been received 2nd December 2016. I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation. 16/01342/B Page 3 of 5 Decision Made : Permitted Date: 05.01.2017 Determining officer Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer 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. 16/01342/B Page 4 of 5 ## 16/01342/B Page 5 of 5 --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/21835-braddan-dreem-ard/documents/1017137*