**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 12/00498/B — Extension to residential curtilage (Retrospective) **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2012-06-29 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2631-braddan-39-cherry-extension/documents/1269940 --- # Officer Planning Report Case Officer: Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken: 25.04.2012 Site Visit: 25.04.2012 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation ## Officer's Report ### The Application Site 1. The application site is the residential curtilage of 39 Cherry Walk, a two storey detached dwelling sited on the northern side of Cherry Walk, Douglas. The application site dwelling forms part of a cul-de-sac and is accessed east off Cedar Walk, north of Johnny Watterson's Lane. 2. The existing dwelling is finished in a cream painted render with decorative brick work to the bottom section of the front elevation. The existing dwelling has uPVC framed windows throughout with balustrading to the front first floor window. To the front of the elevation is an integrated single garage opening up out onto the driveway providing parking space for one vehicle. 3. The application site is adjacent to No. 41 Cherry Walk to the west and No. 37 Cherry Walk to the east. There is a Manx Electricity Authority (MEA) substation 4 metres north west from the existing side rear boundary of the application site. The existing boundary has fencing on all elevations with the front of the dwelling open to the highway. ### The Proposal 4. This application seeks the approval for the extension to the residential curtilage by 24.3 square metres. The work has already been undertaken. 5. Fencing was erected at the rear of The Cherry Walk and beyond by Heritage Homes Ltd in preparation for the Ballanard Woods housing development. The fencing was placed behind the existing boundary treatment that comprised a low level grass bank/mound. The applicant proceeded to remove the mound to gain a larger garden amenity space and use the fence put up by Heritage Homes Ltd as a new boundary treatment. Further to this, extra fencing was erected abutting the rear boundary fence of No.41 The Cherry Walk to adjoin the fencing put in place by Heritage Homes, providing 6.3 square metres of land added to the land directly adjacent to the existing garden. The direct adjacent area gained is 18 square metres. This area is to be grass seeded over and incorporated as part of the existing garden. The current use of the land is scrub/open land and is proposed to be used as a garden/grass area. ### Planning History [Table omitted in markdown export] 7. The application site has been the subject of five previous planning applications, three of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application: PA 09/01674/B: Erection of an extension to replace rear elevation conservatory and extension to driveway (comprising amendments to PA 09/00463B). This previous planning application was permitted. PA 09/00463/B: Construction of extension to replace existing rear elevation conservatory and extension to driveway. This previous planning application was permitted. PA 04/01817/B: Enclosure of existing open porch. This previous planning application was permitted. ### Planning Policy 8. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is predominantly residential under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 3 (North). The application site is not within a conservation area and nor is it a Registered Building. 9. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. ### General Policy 2 states: "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; and - (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." ### Representations 10. Douglas Borough Council has no objection against the current planning application. 11. The Highways Division have no objection to the current planning application. 12. A representation was made from the Owner of No. 41 The Cherry Walk, on the following grounds which have been summarised below: 1) The application site has not been correctly marked. The applicant has only labelled the land from the existing boundary treatment to where the MEA erected their fence. 2) The additional area adjacent to the MEA sub station should not be fenced, but instead not to have any land under the control of another residential property at the rear of any part of my property. 3) Is it possible to allow adversely occupied land to be included in deeds? 4) The planning application seeks to frustrate any expectation that any conditions applied would be enforced. A Further representation was made by the owner of No. 41 The Cherry Walk, in which they addressed that the MEA were not responsible for the erection of the fencing and it would appear the Heritage Homes took it upon themselves to carry out the action. The appellant has included an email from the MEA confirming that the fence was erected solely by Heritage Homes. The MEA also state that they do not wish to comment on the application as the current planning application does not adversely affect the MEA's cables. Amended plans were submitted by the applicant to outline the corrected curtilage gained. A further representation was then made by the Owner of No. 41 The Cherry Walk commenting on the removal of the existing boundary, in which the appellant has stated to be a stone wall. The appellant would wish that the further land gained to the rear garden of No. 39 The Cherry Walk was left to revert to natural vegetation thereby replacing some of the screening from the Ballanard Woods development and providing some additional wildlife habitat. The Owner of No. 41 The Cherry Walk objects against the current planning application on the following additional grounds: 1) The applicant has ignored the recommendation from Dandara in 2012 to extend the side fencing of the boundary with No. 41 The Cherry Walk to adjoin the fencing put up by Heritage Homes. 2) The land gained by the applicant would still be within the curtilage of the land owned by Heritage Homes and characterised as Agricultural or Amenity Land. ### Assessment 13. Due to the nature of the planning application, the main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are the impact of the extended residential curtilage on neighbouring properties and the impact on the surrounding area in general. 14. During the preparation for the Ballanard Road housing scheme development a timber fence was erected behind the existing boundary treatment of 39 Cherry Walk including the other properties of The Cherry Walk and The Abbey Woods extending up to Ballanard Road. The applicant was informed by Heritage Homes, by a verbal agreement, that the small area of land behind the mound boundary could be used for their own personal recreation space. On this news, the applicant consequently removed the existing boundary treatment, which is believed to have measured just over one metre. A section of fencing was put up, on recommendation by Heritage Homes, to extend the existing side boundary fence with No. 37 The Cherry Walk i to connect to the fencing erected by Heritage Homes. This verbal agreement and recommendation from Heritage Homes also retaed to extending the existing side boundary of No. 41 The Cherry Walk to adjoin the Heritage Homes fencing, however the applicant did not proceed with this recommendation. 15. As previously mentioned, the applicant gained a further 6.3 square metres due to the erection of further fencing to close off the MEA substation that is positioned 4 metres north west from the application site. The fencing erected projected from the existing rear fence of No. 41 The Cherry Walk and adjoined the fencing put in place by Heritage Homes. In total the applicant has gained 26.6 square metres given the removal of the mound and further landscape gained from the erection of additional fencing. 16. The removal of the existing mound is not considered detrimental to neighbouring properties given that the fencing erected by Heritage Homes act as a substantial boundary treatment. The previous boundary mound was not substantial in height and it could be suggested that it did not serve its purpose as a significant, established boundary in the first place. No. 41 The Cherry Walk has a large tree directly at therear of their garden adjacent to the 6.3 square metres of land gained by No.39 The Cherry Walk that is considered to act as an adequate level of screening. The height of the fence is considered not to encourage overlooking into either property. 17. From a site visit it was evident that No. 37 The Cherry Walk could also easily also use the slight gain in garden area between the existing mound and Ballanard Woods fencing as increased garden landscape given the inadequate level and scale of the existing mound. The existing mound does not offer high levels of security and private amenity. 18. In regards to the existing dwelling, it is considered the fencing erected by Heritage Homes acts as a more considerable boundary treatment than the previous mound that was existing. The fencing offers improved private amenity to the residents of the application site as well as the neighbouring properties. The increased residential curtilage is not judged to be damaging to the dwelling as it offers increased garden landscape and amenity space. 19. It is considered that the extension of the residential curtilage will have a minimal, if any, impact on the surrounding area and street scene of The Cherry Walk. Given that the fencing and rear garden is not visible from the public thoroughfare. 20. A number of points were raised within the representation made by the Owner of No. 41 The Cherry Walk. This planning application has stemmed from an enforcement case that has been ongoing since 2010. With reference to the incorrect site markings, an amended plan was submitted correctly detailing the area gained by the applicant and the area in which has been extended. In regards to the point made in ignoring the recommendation of extending the existing side fence, the applicant has chosen to submit a planning application to seek permission for the additional 6.3m2 of land. With regards to the removal of a stone wall boundary, the Planning Department was informed by the applicant throught the planing application that prior to owning the property in 2002 there was a grass bank onto open land. The other points made are not considered material planning matters and therefore hold no weight in the determination of this planning application. 20. Overall it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. RECOMMENDATION 21. It is recommended that the planning application be permitted. ## PARTY STATUS 22. The local authority, Douglas Borough Council, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 23. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status: The Owner of No. 41 The Cherry Walk, immediately adjacent to the application site. 24. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is also part. As such, the Highways Division should not be afforded separate party status. ### Recommendation **Recommended Decision:** Permitted **Date of Recommendation:** 22.06.2012 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals C 1. This approval for the extension to the residential curtilage relates to 1 x A4 Photograph detailing the MEA Sub Station and Fence Erected by MEA, 1 x A4 Photograph detailing the View from MEA substation to rear of No. 41 nd No. 39 Cherry Walk and 1 x Photograph detailing the View from No.39's (applicant) rear garden all date stamped 27th March 2012 and Amended Plan detailing the location of the application site and Amended Plan detailing the site plan all date stamped 25th May 2012. 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:** Permitted **Date:** 28.10.12 ### Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed: _________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager 28 June 2012 28 June 2012 --- *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/2631-braddan-39-cherry-extension/documents/1269940*