Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00274/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00274/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs James & Ann Kenna Proposal : Creation of vehicle access and additional driveway, works to include the dropping of a kerb Site Address : 84 Eary Veg Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5LZ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 25.04.2023 Site Visit : 25.04.2023 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.12.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is insufficient reason demonstrated within the submission to warrant the creation of two accesses to the site which would be introducing an element of harm to all highway users. The application does not provide clear justifications that demonstrates how a second access will add to the safety of the access arrangements, or why such added safety cannot be achieved from a single access, or by improving or repositioning an existing access. As such, the proposal would not comply with General Policy 2 (h 7 i), and the Manual for Manx Roads, as the principle cannot be justified.
R 2. The proposed development is unacceptable because it would result in the loss of a significant proportion of the front boundary wall and front garden which would be unduly detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene particularly on this side of the road, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 3. The new access would be at a point along the road where it would cut through a designated pedestrian walkway, with potential to increase the potential conflicts between vehicle users and pedestrians and is not considered to be in the interest of highway safety. This element of the proposal would fail Transport policies 4 and 6, and General Policy 2 (h & i) of the Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00274/B Page 2 of 6
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 84 Eary Veg, Douglas, which is a detached bungalow in a residential cul-de-sac and located on the southern side of the highway and south of the junction with Cronk Liauyr.
1.2 The dwelling like all the properties within the cul de sac has its front garden defined by low brick boundary walls separated by the vehicular entrance to the dwelling, although the current driveway goes down a very steep drive to the existing garage. The front garden of the property has recently been re-laid with an Astroturf-style material.
1.3 All the properties within the cul de sac have only one access and driveway. There are some properties which have a larger parking area with reduced lawn/landscaped gardens and visa versa.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for creation of vehicle access and additional driveway, works to include the dropping of a kerb.
2.2 A section of the existing boundary wall would be removed to enable the creation of the new vehicular access that would be 3m wide and would lead to a parking area on site that is 8.1m long and opening up to a fan-shaped parking area with base about 6.5m wide. The works would also involve creating a new drop kerb along this section of the footway.
2.3 This proposal would result in the dwelling having two vehicular access and driveways.
2.4 The applicants have provided additional information via correspondence dated 1 May 2023 which states the following: o They have applied for the new driveway because the existing driveway is too steep to park on and in the winter months is too dangerous to use. o They state that they are keeping the garage as usable storage. o They note that they are the only household that currently park cars on the quiet cul-de- sac and would require two parking space driveway.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East (Map 4 - Douglas) and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks or within a registered tree area and there are no registered trees on site.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; i. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations ii. Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 3 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. iii. Transport Policy 4 - new and existing highways must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner. iv. Transport Policy 6 - the needs of pedestrians to be given similar weight to the needs of other road users in new development and transport facilities. v. Transport Policy 7 - require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00274/B Page 3 of 6
4.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE 2021: 4.1.1 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the general advice set out in 6.3 of the Residential Design Guide in respect of driveways and car parking and not removing over 50% of the garden area.
4.2 THE MANUAL FOR MANX ROADS: 4.2.1 Section B4: Access Layouts It states: "B.4.1 The general rule is one access point to and from a property. More than one access point increases the potential for traffic conflict. Applications for two access crossings to a single property or a second access point where one already exists require you to provide strong evidence that it will add significantly to highway safety.
B.4.2 For such applications to be considered, the applicant will need to show: o how a second access will add to the safety of the access arrangements o why such added safety cannot be achieved from a single access, or by improving or repositioning an existing access."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of a recent planning application for Erection of fencing (retrospective) under PA 13/91444/B which is not considered relevant to the current application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they oppose the proposal due to the creation of an additional access to a single dwelling, contrary to Department policy. They note that the application form states that the existing driveway is too steep to park on and advise the applicant to consider closing up the existing access in order to maintain one access to the highway whilst creating the proposed access and driveway to provide a preferable parking arrangement. If this is the case, the proposed parking area should be a minimum of length of 5.5m and a minimum width of 6m if it is to also provide pedestrian access. If a separate pedestrian access is to be provided, or maintained from the existing access, then a minimum width requirement of 5.2m is needed for the double driveway spaces (24 March 2023).
6.1.1 Following receipt of comments from DOI Highways, the applicants were contacted to ascertain whether they would be amending the scheme to address the concerns raised by DOI highways, to ensure the proposal is in in line with the Manual for Manx Roads. Also, a 21 day letter was sent to the applicants (on 20 October 2023) to confirm if the applicants would be providing revised plans or proceeding with the scheme as submitted.
6.1.2 No further correspondence has been received from the applicants. As such, the report and assessments have been carried out based on the initial submission.
6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They request that the applicant provide additional information of the construction details to demonstrate surface water runoff will not drain onto the public highway (17 February 2023).
6.2.1 Since the comments from DOI Highways Drainage was received, no further information or correspondence has been received from the applicants to address their concerns.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00274/B Page 4 of 6
6.3 Douglas Borough Council has no objections to the application (24 March 2023).
6.4 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are: a. The Principle (GP2 & MFMR) b. The impact on the Character and appearance of the area (GP 2, EP 42, ST 3 & RDG 2021); c. The Impact on Highway safety (GP 2 & TP 6); and d. Drainage Issues (GP 2 h & i)
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.2.1 In ascertaining the acceptability of the principle of the proposed scheme, the starting point here is the general rule within the Manual for Manx Roads for one access point to and from a property, as it is noted that more than one access point increases the potential for traffic conflict. Section B4 of the MFMR also notes that applications for two access crossings to a single property or a second access point where one already exists requires the applicants to provide strong evidence that it will add significantly to highway safety.
7.2.2 In this case, the justification provided by the applicants indicate that the existing access is unsafe and that a new access would increase safety for vehicles entering and exiting the site. This issue was observed on site during the site visit as the very steep drive and the short stretch which is less than 6m is below the acceptable standard for driveways; a factor that has been noted in DOI Highways comments dated 24 March 2023.
7.2.3 Notwithstanding the factors above which weigh in favour of the application, the applicants have indicated that they intend to keep the existing access, although they note that the existing garage would be used as storage, which indicates that the existing access is no longer needed to serve the garage. As such, the removal of the garage would be the appropriate step to take in order to comply with the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads, considering the existing garage would no longer serve as a parking provision on site. Given the above, the applicants have been contacted on the need to close up the existing driveway. Since contacts were made on the issue, with reminder sent on 20 October 2023, no amendments have been made to the submission. Also, no further justification beside that currently indicated in the initial submission has been provided as reasons sufficient to retain the existing access whilst creating a secondary access.
7.2.4 It is, therefore, considered that the principle of creating the new access would be at variance with the requirements of the MFMR and GP 2 (h) which seeks to ensure provision of appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
7.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 7.3.1 It can sometimes be the case that an excessive amount of hardstanding for vehicular parking can undermine the attractiveness of an area, particularly where properties are in limited sized plots and/or where there is already a preponderance of vehicular parking and hard standing areas.
7.3.2 In this case, however, the frontage is moderate sized (measuring about 88.3sqm) with the proposed scheme set to remove about 47.1% (41.6sqm) of the existing front garden area (which is currently turfed in artificial finish). As this is below the 50% maximum threshold (with the remaining garden area measuring more than 50% of the existing), the potential impact is diminished. However, large parts of the front garden would be given over to two driveways and on plot vehicle parking when the current proposal is considered together with the existing parking (given that there would be no avenue to prevent the existing driveway from being
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00274/B Page 5 of 6
used as vehicle parking). As such, the resulting impacts would be detrimental to the character of the site and immediate street scene.
7.3.3 In terms of the impacts on the boundary wall which serves to define the street scene, the creation of a new area of driveway and parking within the front garden would further punctuate the existing low boundary wall in an area where only single access and driveways serve the properties and create breaks along the continuous homogeneous stretch of brick facing boundary treatment, and this is not considered to be of benefit to the character of the street scene.
7.3.4 The proposal (if approved) would undoubtedly alter the character and appearance of the area by introducing a 3m access added to the existing 4m wide access, creating further reduction in the length of the boundary wall. This loss of brick walling, whilst small in scale is considered a detrimental loss to the character and setting of the area as there are limited openings along the stretch of the walling which runs along the entire street scene. This impacts is particularly unwarranted as there is insufficient justification for the development.
7.3.5 Based on the foregoing, the proposal would nevertheless, be contrary to the spirit of the Residential Design Guide, and is adjudged to be unacceptably harmful to the visual quality and character of the immediate street scene, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g), Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 3 (b).
7.4 IMPACTS ON PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on parking and highway safety, it is considered that the proposed development would provide for a better off-street parking space within the site, given that the driveway slope would be safer for vehicle parking. However, as the existing access would be retained, the scheme would result in the loss of an on street parking space in front of the property, thus resulting in net loss of on-street parking provision, creating further parking pressure in the immediate locality. It would be vital to note here that on-street parking is a common feature of the locality.
7.4.2 Additionally, the creation of the additional driveway across the public footpath (which measures 3m wide), would increase the amount of vehicle crossings over a narrow stretch of public footpath and this is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians. Moreover, the scheme would increase the potential for traffic conflict and there is no evidence to suggest that it will add significantly to highway safety for all highway users, despite the fact it would provide a safer parking area for the dwelling, and therefore is not acceptable.
7.5 DRAINAGE 7.5.1 As DOI Flood Risk Management Division has commented request drainage details, with no further documentation provided by the applicants, it is considered that the drainage arrangement is lacking, and does not provide the basis to adequately assess the impacts of the scheme on highway drainage.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Therefore, in the absence of information to demonstrate that the two access provisions for the dwelling would improve highway safety, and as there is no supporting information to demonstrate that the works would not result in detrimental impacts on highway drainage, it is considered that the principle of the development is not acceptable.
8.2 The scheme as proposed would also result in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance of the immediate street scene, and increase the potential conflicts between vehicle users and pedestrians.
8.3 Overall, It is concluded that the planning application would be at variance with the provisions of General Policy 2 (b, c, g & h), Environment Policy 42, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00274/B Page 6 of 6
Transport Policy 6 of the Strategic Plan, whilst failing to align with the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide 2021. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.
9.0 INTERESTED 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 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 Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 06.12.2023
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal