Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00186/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00186/B Applicant : Mr John & Mrs Jeanette Gelling Proposal : Creation of raised parking, garden walling, steps and widening of vehicular access Site Address : 3 Oak Close Birch Hill Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3HR
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.04.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed raised parking would have a harmful effect on the appearance of the property in the streetscene which generally has an open plan boundary setting and would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2 b and c, having regard to the Department's Residential Design Guidance 2019. Whilst the proposal would create additional off street parking spaces, the property already has two parking spaces which meets the Department's requirement for residential dwelling and the proposed parking would reduce the on-street parking which would not result in a net benefit.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 3 Oak Close, Birch Hill, Onchan which is a detached bungalow situated to the east of the Oak Close cul-de sac which is to the south of the Maple Avenue cul-de-sac.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00186/B Page 2 of 5
1.2 The properties to the east and south of the Oak Close cul de sac have driveways of different gradients and have open plan front gardens. 3 Oak Close has the steepest driveway within Oak Close.
1.3 3 Oak Close currently has two available parking spaces, one within the current garage and one on the driveway.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval to erect a raised driveway suitable for two car parking spaces. The raised driveway will measure 6.1m wide by 6.5m length and will have a height of 1.2m at the lowest point of the driveway. On top of the proposed raised driveway is a 1.1m high post and wire balaustrade which is to go around part of the raised platform. To the north of the raised driveway the current flower bed will be changed into an access ramp and to the south of the raised driveway a new footpath will be installed with landscaping.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Onchan Local Plan 2000, village Map 1. The Onchan Local Plan 2000 has a policy which is relevant to this assessment, O/RES/P/21 which states "Extensions and alterations to existing residential property will general not be opposed where such proposals are appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property.
4.2 Of specific relevance to the assessment of this application is General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 2 states "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; 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 convient 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.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services do not oppose the application and have supplied the following comments, "The applicant initially consulted Highway Services in relation to pre-application advice which included car parking space sizes, access gradients, access visibility and a possible Section 109A Highway Agreement in relation to the extension of the dropped kerb access crossing of the footway.
The application indicates suitable on-site parking for 2 cars parked side by side. The access visibility for both spaces is suitable for the conditions. The access gradient is 1 in 8 upwards towards the footway which is steeper than the normal maximum standard of 1 in 14 but represents a significant improvement over the existing steeper upward gradient. In order to provide the 2 side by side parking spaces the dropped kerb needs to be extended as indicated
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00186/B Page 3 of 5
on the plans and the applicant would need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement with the Highway Authority in order for these works to be undertaken." (10.03.20)
5.2 Onchan Commissioners have considered the proposal and recommend approval (18.03.20).
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the planning application are the potential impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of 3 Oak Close, Birch Hill and the wider street scene.
6.2 Due to the nature of the works, the Department does not have specific guidelines on what would be accepted and what wouldn't as such this report has considered at several different aspects.
6.3 Character and Appearance
6.3.1 Oak Close is within a cul-de-sac of 10 dwellings within a much larger housing estate which has several different types of properties ranging from bungalows to two storey dwelling, with the surrounding area of Oak Close mostly being bungalows. When looking at Oak Close specifically it can be seen that the houses to the eastern side have driveways ranging in gradient going from west to east with the properties to the west having driveways facing west to north. 3 Oak Close specifically is defined by the bay windows to the front elevation with the open plan front garden/ boundaries which is carried on through the Oak Close cul-de sac and the wider estate.
6.3.2 The Residential Design Guidance 2016 addresses Driveways and front gardens by stating the following, "Proposals which result in a loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden would not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the street scape is retained and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and to the outlook of residents."
6.3.3 Whilst it is noted that the proposed driveway would not create a loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscape it is relevant to assess the appearance of the raised parking on the character of the property and the wider street scene.
6.3.4 The properties within Oak Close and the wider streetscene of Birch Hill have the appearance of open plan gardens with single driveways mostly leading to a garage within the property curtilage. Depending on the topography of the site depends on the gradient of the driveway, whilst it can be seen that 3 Oak Close has the steepest gradient within Oak Close, there are several properties within the wider streetscene of Birch Hill which have similar driveways.
6.3.5 The proposed raised driveway would have a raised platform of 1.2m at the lowest level of the driveway which would bring the raised platform to the middle of 3 Oak Close's front elevation, with the post and wire balustrade bringing the balustrade to the roof guttering at the lowest point of the driveway and above the roof guttering at the highest level of the driveway. Whilst the room which would be directly facing the raised parking wouldn't be a primary habitable room as it is a bedroom, it should be noted that the pleasant clear outlook which was previously available wouldn't be available with these works.
6.3.6 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 supplies information on front extensions to a dwellinghouse which states, "4.1.1 An extension to the front of a property can have the greatest impact upon the individual dwelling and/or the street scene. There may be limited circumstances when a front extension is appropriate, for example where the street has an irregular building line or pattern. Any extension should normally appear as if it were designed
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00186/B Page 4 of 5
with the original building and not look out of place in the street" Whilst the raised parking is not directly a front extension it should be classed the same due to the possible impact on the main property and the wider streetscene as a whole.
6.3.7 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 also states the following regarding open plan boundaries, "6.1.4 Where dwellings are within an open plan estate or have a distinctive character, the erection of walls and fences greater than 1 metre at the front of the property is unlikely to be acceptable. The character of such estates is derived from the open, landscaped environment and physical built barriers will significantly detract from that character."
6.3.8 As previously stated Oak Close and the wider estate of Birch Hill have open plan boundaries which is one of the defining characteristics of the estate. The installation of the raised parking and the post and wire fencing whilst it is not 1 metre high from the main road, the highest part of the raised parking and post and wire fencing will be 2.2 metres above the ground level which the property is situated at. This alteration will be seen and noticeable from the main road of Maple Avenue which would alter the overall character and appearance of Oak Road as a whole removing the overall open plan boundary feeling the estate and cul-de-sac has.
6.3.9 While each application needs to be judged on its own merits; there is concern that approval of this application would increase the likelihood of further similar proposals within the cul-de-sac and the wider street scene with several properties having similar driveways is something that needs to be noted, whilst this would not be a major reasoning for refusal, the likelihood if the proposal was approved and similar driveways were installed would create a substantial detrimental effect on the overall street scene with the open plan boundaries being majorly altered.
6.4 Net Benefit
6.4.1 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 addresses additional parking and net benefits by stating the following, "It should be acknowledged that car parking in front gardens does not necessarily increase the overall amount of car parking capacity within an area. The creation of an off-street space normally requires the provisions of a new access, which can result in the loss of at least one on-street parking space. Proposals which do not result in a net benefit are unlikely to be supported."
6.4.2 Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 there are car parking standards for typical residential development which states, "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling." The property currently has the required two parking spaces with one space accessible from the driveway and one space within the garage. It was noted that whilst on my site visit that whilst there were cars parked on the roadside within Oak Close that there was not an issue with finding parking.
6.4.3 The proposed two parking spaces would take an additional parking of the main road where there are already two spaces within the curtilage of the dwelling, as well as blocking the garage for any further use, as such there is no net benefit for this scheme.
CONCLUSION
7.1 By virtue of its design, size and materials proposed the proposal would unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing property and the character of the surrounding area. Therefore the proposal conflicts with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and The Residential Design Guidance 2019.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00186/B Page 5 of 5
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; (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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 27.04.2020
Determining officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
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