**Document:** Officer Report and Recommendations
**Application:** 13/00038/B — Erection of fencing (part retrospective)
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2013-03-12
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/3880-braddan-north-lodge-cronkbourne-fence-retrospective/documents/1287473

---

# Officer Report and Recommendations

Case Officer: Miss Laura Davy Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

### Officer's Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER.

### The Site

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 part of the application site. The application site 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 Proposal

2. The application seeks approval for the erection of fencing along the western boundary. The application is partially retrospective as the applicant did not know that planning permission was required. The fencing would be approximately 2 – 2.2m in height along the western boundary. The fencing would be constructed of steel; it would be coated green and would be vertical boarded.

### Planning History

3. The most recent application was in 2010 which was for the erection of a detached garage, this application was permitted.

### Development Plan Policies

4. Part of 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).

5. General Policy 2

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;

[Table omitted in markdown export]

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;
I) 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.
6. Environment Policy 3

Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.

## Consultations

7. Highways Division do not oppose as it has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
8. Braddan Commissioners have not commented
9. The owner/occupier of 40 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the proposed fence is inappropriate for the area and would be more suited to surrounding a compound. The fence panels are of solid construction and they feel that the fence would spoil the whole open aspect of Tromode Woods.
10. The owner/occupier of 20 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they have not seen evidence of fly tipping, and they feel that the partly erected fence would not be in keeping with the area. The colour and appearance is visually unattractive and therefore damaging to the location. They would support some form of tidying up the proposal in its current form is not in their opinion appropriate.
11. The owner/occupier of 11 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the proposed fence is not in keeping with the housing development or the woodland. It is a synthetic material and would be more in keeping with an industrial development. They feel that a brown wooden fence would be sympathetic to the natural woodland environment and much more aesthetically pleasing for the residents of Tromode Woods.
12. The owner/occupier of 21 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the fence would be totally out of keeping. The land that the fence would be erected is privately owned by Tromode Woods residents. They feel that the fencing in the lane is ok and gives some privacy to North Lodge. They feel that the fence would be visually damaging to the setting and conflict with the character. Also a loss of open space.

13. The owner/occupier of 36 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the fence is too big and ugly. It would close in the surrounding area and block the view to the woods.
14. The owner/occupier of 12 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the proposed fence is industrial looking and better suited to an industrial estate/prison yard or zoo. The proposed fence is partially retrospective as it was erected without planning permission and is in breach of the Permitted Development Order. They also feel that it is not in keeping with the surrounding area, is visually damaging to the landscape and setting, along with the loss of open space. The established hedge and fence which was there has been deliberately cut back in anticipation of the erection of the proposed fence. The fence along Hollin Lane would be erected on land which the applicant does not own. There is also a stream which runs under the road from the Tromode Woods Estate which would need to pass through/under the fence.
15. The owner/occupier of a property in Tromode Woods has written in to object, but has not given the full address of the property. In summary they feel that the proposal is a hideous monstrosity which impacts all who come and go from the estate. They feel that a wood slatted fence would be more appropriate for the area. They feel that the woodlands are an area of natural beauty and should be preserved as such. The fencing would appear as a compound and would spoil the open aspect.
16. The owner/occupier of 17 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the proposed fence would be unsuitable for the area and would have a negative effect on the street scape. Does not comply with the Permitted Development Order. The access gate poses a road safety risk. They indicate that the fence would be partly erected on land that the owners of the properties on Hollin Lane own.
17. The owner/occupier of 33 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the fencing is not in keeping with the area. They have no doubt it is of high quality but it does not make it right for the area. They feel that the fencing is unnecessary and would be an eyesore for anyone living and visiting the estate.
18. The owner/occupier of 38 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the fence would be more suitable to a commercial/industrial area. The fence stands out and is overbearing and out of character in terms of its appearance. The fence would have a negative impact on the visual character and appearance of the estate.
19. The owner/occupier of 18 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they feel that the proposal would cause a significant impairment to the local environment, and would greatly diminish the outlook from their property and character of the estate. The fence is unsightly and more in keeping with the secure unit. They feel that the fence impacts on the amenity value of the estate; it would affect the natural light and may be a focus for vandalism.
20. The owner/occupier of 15 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods objects to the proposal. In summary they state that the fence would not comply with planning regulations. Whilst not in a Conservation Area it is by Cronkbourne Cottages and The Old School House. The fencing would not be in keeping and would be more in keeping with a prison/industrial unit. The land on Hollin Lane is not within the applicant's ownership. There is a culvert that runs through the land which has been blocked previously which has caused damage to a property in Hollin Lane. The applicant states that there is a right of way onto Hollin Lane; this is not shown in the Deeds.

---

*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/3880-braddan-north-lodge-cronkbourne-fence-retrospective/documents/1287473*