Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00785/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00785/B Applicant : Mrs Kay Sims Proposal : Creation of a vehicular access Site Address : 24 Third Avenue Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4NA
Head of Development Management: Miss Jennifer Chance Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.12.2018 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
The drawings relevant to this approval are the location plan and graph plan date stamped 25 July 2018 __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following person should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The writer does do not own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00785/B Page 2 of 4
The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The site is a terrace house in Third Avenue in Onchan, a cul de-sac of terrace houses that originally would have only been served by on-street parking. Front gardens are defined by low cement rendered boundary walls. One side of the street has double yellow lines restricting parking along it. The road is narrow and parking would not be feasible both sides of the road in any event. No. 24 is situated at the end of the road where the turning circle is.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 Approval is sought to remove the front garden wall, lower the kerb and to concrete the front garden to provide for a parking space.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY Onchan Local Plan 2000 - 'Predominantly Residential'
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 2 (GP2) - seeks to ensure, inter alia, that development does not adversely affect the character of the area, the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality, and provides for safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking and manoeuvring space. In Appendix 7 'parking standards', it is recommended that for residential terraces 2 parking spaces should be provided and that these should not be in front of dwellings where they would result in a poor outlook and be detrimental to the amenities of an area.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY None relevant to this site, however there are relevant applications within the street.
33 Third Avenue 18/00751/B. Creation of off-road parking - Refused on the basis that the driveway at between 4m and 5m is too short to accommodate a vehicle.
25 Third Avenue 18/00547/B. Creation of a vehicular access - approved (it was noted that the garden was 5m in depth)
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
Highway Services (4.9.18.) OPPOSE "There is no existing site parking and the proposal would create an off-street parking space by converting the whole front garden into hardstanding. The entire front wall would be removed to facilitate vehicular access. The 'Manual for Manx Roads' (MfMR) design guide specifies that a driveway space should be at least 3.4m x 5.5m in size where there is no separate footpath to the dwelling front door from the public highway. The site plan shows that the site frontage is approximately 4.5m wide and varies in length between around 4.5m and 7m. The length is therefore inadequate to accommodate a parked car and sufficient clearance to the building in front of it and the public footway behind it. This would result in a parked car overhanging the adjacent footway and causing an obstruction to pedestrians. The proposal cannot therefore be afforded highway support as the site frontage is too short in length."
Onchan District Commissioners: Recommend approval (15.8.18)
Resident of Ballaquark, Douglas (6.8.18) states that they believe the proposal is deleterious to the environment as it would; i) increase runoff, ii) spoil the symmetry of the cul-de-sac; cars
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00785/B Page 3 of 4
would have to reverse which would not be safe particularly for pedestrians, would be visually detrimental and set a terrible precedent for other properties on Island.
6.0 ASSESSMENT The primary issues for consideration in the determination of this application are i) highway safety; and ii) visual amenity.
Highway safety: The standards in Manual for Manx Roads is noted. It is clearly desirable to provide for new parking spaces to a generous size to allow for larger vehicles plus space for people to get in and out of cars easily and for boots to be easily accessed without detriment to highway safety. Highway Services measure the site frontage as being between 4.5 and 7m in length, whereas the applicant's drawing shows it as between 4.7m and 6.9m. Given how the front garden tapers, it is only 4.7m for a short distance and its average length is over 5m in length for at least 3.5m width of the plot.
The applicant has submitted a plan that argues two cars can be parked in the garden on the basis of a car measuring 1.7m wide and 3.8m long. Very few cars are only 3.8m long - even a Ford Ka is 3.955m long and is 1.743 wide, and a Mini is 3.821 x 1.727.
Given this, it is unlikely that two cars could be parked in the manner shown in the applicant's plan (and it would not be possible to open the car doors); however it is clearly possible for one standard size car such as a Renault Megane (4.359 x 1.814) to park easily without overhanging the footway.
The car would have to either reverse in, or out, but it is not considered that the traffic levels would be such that this would have a detriment to other highway users. There is much less activity than in a supermarket car park for instance.
The Highway Services response to the application at 25 Third Avenue of 27 June 2018 (space shown to be 5m wide by 4.5-5.5m) states that the length of the parking area would be a little short of Manual for Manx Roads at 2.5m x 5.5m, but it would still be ok to accommodate a smaller size car or a large car at a slight angle and consequently no objection was given.
The Highway Services response to the application at 33 Third Avenue of 17 August 2018 (space shown to be 5m wide by 4.5-5m) states that the length of the parking area would be short of Manual for Manx Roads at 3.4m x 5.5m and the length is therefore inadequate to accommodate a parked car and sufficient clearance to the building in front of it and the public footway behind it. This would result in a parked car overhanging the adjacent footway and causing an obstruction to pedestrians.
Although differing standards from Manx Roads are used the application that was refused appears to have the smallest garden whereas the current application has the largest of the front gardens. It might not meet the standards, but it can safely accommodate a car in a street where there is limited parking available.
Visual Impact: The view of the objector who indicates that the removal of front garden walls and paving over garden areas is detrimental to a street is fully understood. However the site does not lie in a conservation area and a number of garden walls have been removed already. It is not considered that the proposal would result in an undue loss of visual amenity.
Other matters: The concern of the objector in respect of hardstanding resulting in increased run-off is also noted. However it would be inappropriate to refuse this relatively small application on this basis when such an approach is not taken with other applications.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00785/B Page 4 of 4
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered acceptable in accordance with the designation within the Local Area Plan and the appropriate policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 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.
In this instance it is not considered that the resident of Ballaquark has sufficient interest in the application to be awarded Party 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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 24.12.2018
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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