Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01311/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01311/B Applicant : Mrs Val Stevens Proposal : Creation of a parking area for four vehicles for hotel use Site Address : Land Abutting Palace Road, Rear Of 25 Falcon Cliff Court Douglas Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : 1/2/18 Site Visit : 1/2/18 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.03.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed car parking is considered to adversely affect the character of the streetscene and visual amenity by the removal of the roadside bank and the creation of car parking would appear at odds with its surrounding. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and also Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 25 Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas and is specifically the garden area to the south east of the dwellinghouse. The dwellinghouse is an end of terrace of six properties, three stories in height with garaging and the entrance on the ground floor off Falcon Cliff Court.
1.2 To the rear of the terraces are long gardens (approx. 24m) that extend out, generally level onto Palace Road to the south. The ground level here sits approx. 3.5m above the level of the pavement on Palace Road. It is to be noted Palace road is a one way road with parallel parking on either side of the road.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01311/B Page 2 of 5
1.3 The boundary with the highway is formed of a low stone wall with vegetation above, particularly prominently at the southern corner of the site. The highway is roughly 4m lower than the finished floor level of 25 Falcon Cliff Court at the southern corner of the site and, with the vegetation along the boundary, the terrace is very well-screened from the road when viewed from the south. Conversely, it is actually quite prominent when viewed from the north; the difference in height reduces to roughly 3m the further northeast one travels, while there is far more limited vegetation in the gardens associated with the remainder of the terrace.
1.4 From the southwest, the southeastern side of the highway is open and allows views over Douglas Bay while northwestern side has four- and five-storey traditional Victorian buildings along with the occasional modern interpretation of this vernacular. From this point on, the highway benefits from trees lining both sides and acting to provide something of a 'green corridor'; lower level buildings on the northwestern side are then visible through these trees.
PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the creation of an area of off road parking area for 4 vehicles in conjunction with a prospective business in the near vicinity where parking is difficult.
2.2 The proposal would involve works to excavate out the garden area (530 cubic meters) at a size of 15m-17m back from the pavement and 15m wide (the width of the plot). The 4 car parking spaces would each measure 6m long and 3m wide which are set back 9m from the edge of the pavement to allow for vehicles to reverse and turn facing forward when exiting onto the highway. The front apron would remain open with a chain link fence between removable bollards to control the use.
2.3 To the rear of the garden of No.25 would be a new timber post and rail fence to prevent any access from the higher level. The rear of the car park and sides would see the erection of a retaining masonry wall.
2.4 The application would involve the removal of two sycamore trees.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application;
3.2 16/00034/B - Erection of a dwelling Land Abutting Palace Road, Rear of 25 Falcon Cliff Court. Douglas- Refused & Refused at appeal.
3.3 00/01255/A - Approval in principle for 3 self-contained apartments and associated parking - Refused.
PLANNING STATUS 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Douglas Local Plan 1998.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
4.3 General Policy 2 (in part) 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 spaces around them;
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01311/B Page 3 of 5
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (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;
4.4 Environment Policy 42: New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.
4.5 Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development 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, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
4.6 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection (17/01/18)
5.2 Highways Services had initially commented (18/01/18) with concerns over the length of a 14.5m dropped kerb to facilitate access and sought a reduction in the length of this dropped kerb; requested a drawing showing vehicular turning movements in and out of the proposed parking spaces; information on on how the hotel plans to manage the proposed parking bays and accurate visibility splays. Following receipt of amended drawing no 5/908/1 (B) Highway services does not oppose this application. (20/02/18)
5.3 DEFA Forestry's Arboricultural Officer has confirmed (07/03/18) that a license (no.786/17) was issued to cut down the two trees noted for removal in December 2017. He also confirmed they were not concerned about the potential impact of this proposal.
ASSESMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) visual impact on the on the street scene. (ii) impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact) of the neighbouring properties. (iii) impact on highway safety for access.
(i) visual impact on the on the street scene.
6.2 The description of the streetscene as set out earlier in this report set out its attractiveness in both its built and natural form. The presence of a Registered Building opposite adds certain grandeur to the area, while the number and maturity of trees lining the highway provides a leafy and green setting that in many ways underpins its attractive character. The loss of the trees at the southern corner of the site is unfortunate but even more oppressing would be the clear views of the three-storey terrace of Falcon Cliff Terrace which would become much more prominent within the street scene from the insertion into the steep banking and removal of the grassy roadside bank.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01311/B Page 4 of 5
6.3 The planning Inspector for the previous application considered the; "bank and the stone wall beneath it are features that make a valuable contribution to the character of this stretch of Palace Road and their loss would cause significant harm to the streetscene" (paragraph 13). With this in mind I would have to agree with that statement and on visiting the site, the removal of 14m of walling and creation of a parking area would significantly alter the appearance of this part of the area, setting a dangerous precedent.
6.4 EP42 talks about "... the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted." In this instance the reduction of the amenity space associated with No.25 to create parking for a nearby business is considered to generate an adverse impact on the streetscene. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to comply with parts (b), (c) of General Policy 2 and also Environment Policy 42.
(ii) impact upon the neighbouring amenities
6.5 The proposal is concerned with the lower part of the garden and would be approx. 20m away from the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling. The level and scale of the proposal twinned with there being no upper built form being proposed above existing ground level, would not be considered to adversely affect the neighbours living conditions for the enjoyment of their dwellinghouse or rear garden in accordance with General Policy 2 (g).
(iii) impact on highway safety for access.
6.6 The position of Highway Services is understood, in that they do not object. The proposal would be deemed to satisfy Transport Policy 4 and 7, also General Policy 2 (h) and (i) in that the visibility when exiting the car park can be provided without generating any impact on highway safety or on the current parking provision.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The application is finely balanced with the main material issues pulling in opposite directions. I consider more weight should be given to the unfavourable conclusion regarding the adverse visual impact on the streetscene as noted above, than on the positive aspect of highways safety and neighbourhood impact. As such the application is recommended for refusal.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01311/B Page 5 of 5
__
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.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 07.03.2018 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