Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00646/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00646/B Applicant : Mrs Elaine & Mr Nick Williams Proposal : Creation of driveway for one vehicle with associated vehicular access Site Address : 32 Selborne Drive Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3NH
Planning Officer: Mr Hamish Laird Photo Taken : 14.06.2023 Site Visit : 14.06.2023 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.07.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development is unacceptable because it would result in the loss of a significant proportion of the front boundary wall and landscaped front garden which would be unduly detrimental to the appearance and symmetry of the Nos. 30 and 32 Selbourne Drive properties, and the character 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.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site comprises part of the residential curtilage of 32 Selbourne Drive, Douglas which links Albany Road to the south with the A2 Quarterbridge Road to the north.
1.2 The property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, attached to No. 34 on its north-west side. It has a white painted, dash rendered wall to the front boundary with hedging behind in the front garden. The wall is breached by 2 separate, gated, pedestrian access points with paved paths from their front gates situated in front of each dwelling. Parking restrictions in the
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00646/B Page 2 of 5
form of double yellow lines (indicating no parking at any time) apply on this side of Selbourne Drive.
PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the removal of part of the front boundary wall and hedge for the creation of a driveway which would span 3.8m wide x 5.26m deep. The existing wall and hedge corresponding to this width would be removed. The driveway would be sited adjacent to that serving the neighbouring, modern, detached dwelling at No. 30 Selbourne Drive.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 PA91/00659/B and was for the "Construction of lean-to conservatory" was Permitted on 01.01.1994.
3.2 PA 22/00496/B for the "Installation of replacement windows to front elevation" was Permitted on 19.1.2022.
3.3 In respect of the dwelling at No. 30 Selbourne Drive, PA89/00167/A for Approval in principle to detached dwelling with garage, land adjacent to The Laurels, Selbourne Drive, Douglas was Permitted on 19.1.94. PA 89/01609/B for Erection of dwelling, plot adjacent to The Laurels, Selborne Drive, Douglas, was Permitted on Review after being Approved at Appeal on 19.1.94.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider paragraph 8.12.1 and the general design standards set out in General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 along with 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.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found online in full:
5.2 Highway Services (7/6/23) have commented:
The proposal is acceptable in highway terms. The formation of the access is to have ample width at 3.8m exceeding the 3m Manual for Manx Road requirement where there is a separate path. There are to be adequate visibility splays in each direction at 2.4 x 43m in each direction sufficient for a 30mph speed limit on reducing the existing pillar at south to be no higher than 1.05m. The dimensions of the driveway space are sufficient for a standard vehicle albeit the proposed site plan illustrates a small vehicle. Surface water drainage, where necessary, is to be contained within the site and Highway Drainage may comment further on its suitability.
The new access will require a dropped crossing of the footway by a separate permission from Highways under a s109(A) Highway Agreement after grant of any planning consent. Works must be undertaken to the DOI's specification and constructed by a contractor accredited to work on the public road to the satisfaction of Highway Services. Alternatively, the DOI can be commissioned to undertake the works. On construction of the vehicular access, the existing road drainage must either be retained or an effective alternative scheme provided at the Applicant's / Developer's expense on a satisfactory arrangement being drawn up and agreed
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00646/B Page 3 of 5
with the Highway Services' Drainage team. Other highway licences and / or temporary traffic management or road closures may be necessary on construction.
The proposal does not raise significant issues for road safety or network functionality on ensuring the height of southern pillar. Accordingly, no opposition is raised subject to conditions:
a) Access, visibility splay and layout to accord with drawing 23/08/01.
b) Southern pillar to be no more than 1.5m in height.
The Applicant is advised of the need for a S109(A) Highway Agreement and potentially highway licences on construction. Recommendation: DNOC. 5.3 Highway Services (29/6/23) subsequently commented:
Previous Highways response dated 07/06/2023 did not opposed the proposal subject to the height of the pillar to the left on exit of the driveway being reduced in height to no greater than 1.05m.
The applicant has submitted correspondence detailing that the pillar is not within the ownership of the applicant and cannot be dropped. Visibility is impeded by the pillar for only a small section. Due to the provision of a wide pavement along Selbourne Drive and the number of residential accesses fronting onto the road, Highways will accept that a small reduction in the 2.4m setback distance will ensure that the full visibility provision will be achievable.
The applicant is reminded that a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement is required for the alteration to the highway. The proposal also includes the provision of a fence along the south-eastern boundary. The height of the fence at 1800mm means that visibility of pedestrians/pavement is obstructed until the vehicle has emerged from the access. Manual for Manx Roads standards (Appendix B.2) require a pedestrian visibility of 2.4m x 2.4m to be required from an access in order to view passing pedestrians. Highways request that the fence along the boundary is dropped to a maximum height of 0.6m where it lies within the pedestrian visibility splay.
The proposal does not raise significant issues for road safety or network functionality on ensuring the height of southern pillar. Accordingly, no opposition is raised subject to conditions:
a) Access, visibility splay and layout to accord with drawing 23/08/01.
b) The boundary fence to the south-east is dropped to a maximum height of 0.6m where it lies within the pedestrian visibility splay. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. Recommendation: DNOC
5.4 Douglas Corporation has considered the application and state no objection. (26/2/23)
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main consideration of this application is the removal of part of the boundary wall, frontage hedge and part of the lawned/landscaped garden.
6.2 The Selbourne Drive street scene is defined by the reasonably sized front gardens, all of which have parking and lawn/landscaped gardening within them. There are some properties which have on plot vehicular access a parking area with reduced lawn/landscaped gardens. However, the pair of semi-detached dwellings of which No. 32 is one, have pedestrian access
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00646/B Page 4 of 5
only, and the vehicular access serving the adjoining dwelling to the south of No. 30, serves a much more recent development, which is for a detached dwelling which is set back on its plot. The remaining garden area serving No. 32, post development would cover more than 50% of the existing garden area.
6.3 In examining the proposal it is noted that the Department seeks that at least 50% of the lawned/landscaped areas are preserved to ensure that the frontage of properties are not totally hard surfaced. The reasoning for this is to ensure that the character of the streetscene is retained, and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area which would have an adverse impact the visual amenities of the streetscene and the individual property.
6.4 In the case of this application, only part of the frontage would be taken up with hard standing via the removal of the front boundary wall which is a traditional form, and which separates the property from the highway. It is noted from the Case Officers site visit that this property and the attached dwelling at No. 34 only have pedestrian access points serving their front gardens and front doors, which imparts an appearance of balance and symmetry to this pair of dwellings in the street scene. The proposal has reduce this character and appearance which, despite their being vehicular accesses at Nos. 38 and 40, is repeated along this side of the road. The introduction of a driveway would upset this balance and symmetry and when coupled with the access serving the dwelling to the south would result in a degradation of the existing visual amenities of the area as it would erode the character of the streetscene in this location.
6.5 Furthermore Section 6.3 of the Residential Design Guide (2021) states, "6.3.1 Front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. They can enhance the privacy of a dwelling, as well as filtering out the noise and air pollutants produced by pedestrians and motorised traffic.
6.3.2 Front gardens with perimeter walls, hedges, or fences can offer safer spaces in which children can play and they often contribute to the natural habitat of wildlife. Urban green space has a positive effect on health and wellbeing, by enhancing sensory and aesthetic awareness."
6.6 Whilst this proposal would result in less than 50% of the front garden being given over to a driveway and on plot vehicle parking, it would nevertheless, be contrary to the spirit of the Residential Design Guide, and is concerned to be unacceptably harmful to the visual quality and character of this side of Selbourne Drive, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g).
CONCLUSION
7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would fail to comply with the relevant policies of General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021 therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 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;
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00646/B Page 5 of 5
(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.
8.2 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 a Principal Planner 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: 24.07.2023
Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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