Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00876/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00876/B Applicant : Mrs Sue King Proposal : Creation of a driveway and vehicular access Site Address : 7 Laureston Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4BG
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 10.09.2020 Site Visit : 10.09.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.09.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The development would harm its own amenity and harm the street scene and the character the area by virtue of the design and appearance, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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 4(2):
The owner and occupier of 6 Laureston Grove, Douglas, IM2 4BG
as they refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Interested Person Operational Policy 2019 and as they have 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 Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 7 Laureston Grove, a two-storey mid- terrace dwelling located on the east of Laureston Grove. The dwelling is set back from the road with a paved front yard and two flowerbeds. The whole terrace has a similar layout.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00876/B Page 2 of 6
2.1 Proposed is the creation of a driveway. This includes the rearranging the flowerbeds, the removal of the front boundary wall and creation a dropped curb.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use in the Douglas Local Plan 1998.
4.2 In terms of strategic policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.3 General Policy 2: "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 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 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.5 RDG 6 "The Wider Site" sets out some key considerations regarding boundary treatment, trees, the driveway, and front garden.
4.6 RDG 6.1 "Boundary Treatment" states that boundary treatment contributes a great deal to the streetscape and character of an area. Where new or altered boundary treatments are proposed, care should be taken to ensure that the proposed materials and detailing take a lead from the surroundings. It also states that the suitability of the boundary treatment to the front of a property or facing the road should take account of the context of the area.
4.7 RDG 6.3 "Driveways and Front Gardens" states that front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. While increased car ownership resulting in increased demand for car parking space, the creation of an off-street parking space normally requires the provision of 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.
4.8 RDG 6.3.4 states: "Proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the streetscape 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. It is important that the design of a driveway maintains a balance between hard and soft landscaping and contributes positively to the street scene. Proposals are unlikely to be supported where they do not meet the following guidelines: o the area intended for the driveway should be the minimum space necessary (see the Manual for Manx Roads);
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00876/B Page 3 of 6
o where possible, the impact of the driveway is lessened by retaining mature trees and shrubs and/or creating areas of new planting (for example, a planted strip or hedge between the vehicular and pedestrian access can help to break-up the appearance of the hardstanding whilst planting around the fringes of the driveway can also be used to good effect and may be used to help screen the vehicle); o if an opening is made in an existing wall, fence or other boundary feature, the ends should be made good with matching or sympathetic materials (i.e. pillars); o where possible, separate pedestrian access should be retained/provided (existing gates should normally be retained and any new gates should not open out over the highway); o any new gates, walls, fences or other boundary features should reflect the traditional style of the local area; o consideration should be given to a strip of grass or gravel placed in the centre of the hardstanding can hide leaked oil and maintain the look of a front garden; and o parking spaces should be avoided directly in front of any Primary Window as the resulting outlook can be undermined by the presence of parked cars."
4.9 RDG (July 2019) 7.2.1 states: "There are some common issues in relation to impact on neighbouring properties which may apply to both new dwellings and extension to dwellings, and these are: O Potential loos of light/overshadowing; O Potential overbearing impact upon outlook; and O Potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy"
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council commented in objection to this application (15/09/2020). The Council believes that the proposals do not comply with the Design Guidance: there will be a loss of outlook from a primary window in the front elevation of the property and there will be more than a loss of 50% of the front garden area to create the off-street parking.
5.2 DoI Highway Services have no objection (24/08/2020) but do request a section 109A be attached to any future consent. Highway Services considers: "The dimensions to provide two on- site parking places on hardstanding is adequate allowing drivers and passengers to reach car doors and for these to open. The layout further meets the Strategic Plan Parking Standards of two spaces per unit and allowing greater space for access and passage along the public road." Highway Services also states that "The proposal gives rise to no significant road safety issues and an improvement to highway efficiency is expected to occur from the removal of on-street parking."
5.3 The residents of 6 Laureston Grove has commented in objection to this application (03/09/2020). The objection can be summarised as the following: lack of necessity for off-street parking, concern for excess surface water overflow, damaging the aesthetics of the terraces as a whole, impairing the outlook of the living room window, reducing pedestrian safety, and setting precedence, which can lead to losing the character of the street.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main concerns for this application are its principle, its impact on the character and landscape of the area and its impact on the amenities of the neighbours.
Principle of the Development 6.3 As the development is to increase parking spaces, the foundation of such development is the net increase of parking spaces for the street as a whole, as indicated in the RDG. This means after the development, the sum of the number of parking spaces created off-street and the number of parking space remaining on-street should be more than the number of existing parking space available on street.
6.4 Laureston Grove currently has one-side on-street parking, on the side next to the terrace. According to Manual for Manx Road 11.5.2, the length for a typical parking space is 6m. The proposal would result in approx. 6.8m of on-street parking length being lost, meaning the loss of
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00876/B Page 4 of 6
one to two on-street parking space. The proposal will create two parking spaces. Although the width is under recommendation in Manual for Manx Road, Highway Services considers the creation of two parking spaces being valid. It is also to be noted that the additional parking space is for the enjoyment of 7 Laureston Grove only. In summary, the proposal would create a net one-space increase to the number of parking spaces available on Laureston Grove at best. This weighs in the applications favour.
6.5 The next test is whether over 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will be lost. It is noted that the front yards of all the properties on this street are already majoritively paved. Most of the landscape is created by planters instead of lawn or flowerbed. However, it may be easier to convert the existing paved garden into more lawn or flowerbed space than after it being engineered to suit car parking requirement. Therefore the conversion is considered to lead to more than 50% loss of the landscaped front garden space and is considred principally unacceptable.
Impact of the Development
6.6 RDG also states that for the replacement of front garden with parking space, there is a need to weight the benefit created to the applicant against the impact of the changed surface on the property and its surroundings. Such replacement should only be allowed when there is little negative impact, or the benefits overwhelm the negative impacts created as "front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm".
Street Scene and Character of the Area 6.7 The most important consideration for such a proposal is whether it will shift the boundary of the public realm. If so, whether such a shift is acceptable or not? For Laureston Grove, this transition is gradual: road - pavement - boundary wall - paved garden - dwelling. The road, the pavement, and the garden are all paved. Although the material used for paving the road, the pavement, and the front garden are different, they still bear too much resemblance. The low brick wall, a distinguishable feature in both material used and direction of projecting against all the pavements, is what defines this transition from the public realm to private property.
6.8 The proposal will remove the boundary wall and therefore removing the most distinguishable feature separating the public realm and the private property. The lowered curb on both sides will blur the transition from road to the pavement to the paved garden. The slope created by the vehicular access will remove the elevation difference between the road and other elements. The cumulative effect of these proposed works will extend the public realm directly from the road all the way to the front elevation of the property, which is not in character with the street scene nor fitting with the design of the dwelling itself. The proposal is considered failing to respects the site and surroundings in terms of the form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with subsection (b) of General Policy 2.
The Amenity of the Neighbours 6.9 Both Douglas Borough Council and the residents of 6 Laureston Grove has raised concerns for the loss of outlook. Both 6 and 7 Laureston Grove only have one window on the front elevation of ground floor. As they both serve a living room, they are both considered to be a primary window, according to section 7.2 of the RDG.
6.10 In RDG, the loss of outlook is mostly referred to the visual field of existing outlook being physically reduced by proposals, such as an extension. It is usually referred to as overbearing. The change of content to the existing outlook is not necessarily considered as a loss of outlook. The only exception in the RDG is at section 4.7.2 (Roof Terrace) and 6.3.4 (Driveways). In 6.3.4 of the RDG, the loss of outlook is created when reducing the front garden by over 50% or the placement of a parking space directly in front of a primary window (which is defined in 7.2 of the RDG), resulting in the placement of a parked car creating an overbearing effect to such window.
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00876/B Page 5 of 6
6.11 Although the loss of the garden area is considered to be more than 50%, the existing garden is already mostly paved. The change from paved garden to hard surface parking does not drasically change the outlook in terms of visual content for 6 Laureston Grove due to the proposal itself.
6.12 It is my understanding that the when the residents of 6 Laureston Grove concern about the loss of outlook, it is also regarding the parked cars on the proposed parking space will create an overbearing impact on their outlook. The comment states: "Should the application be approved, I would be faced with the side of a large ugly SUV vehicle ... a little over a metre from my living room window. This would also remove light from my living room." This argument is essentially arguing that parked cars have the same impact as an extension or a tall fence, and they should be treated as such. This is somewhat backed up by section 6.3.4 of the RDG, as it considers the placement of a parking space directly in front of a primary window would result in the loss of outlook when a car is parked on such a space.
6.13 Without going into the difference between a car and an extension, the 45-degree-test for measuring overbearing/overshadowing and a shadow simulation on shadowcalculator.eu are conducted to assess the potential impact. Considering the length, width and height of an SUV as approx. 5m, 1.9m and 1.8m, a parked SUV right next to the boundary between the two property would result in it just pass the 45-degree-test. As the potential parked car would be north of the property, there is little concern regarding overshadowing. The simulation shows that the parked car would not cast a shadow on 6 Laureston at mid-winter and will only cast a shadow on 6 Laureston Grove after 4 p.m. It is considered that the impact created by the parked car is acceptable.
The Amenity of the Site 6.14 As mentioned in 6.9 and 6.10, the proposed parking spaces are directly in front of the only primary window on the front elevation of the ground floor of 7 Laureston Grove. With two parked car, it would result in a complete loss of outlook for this window and would affect adversely the amenity of local residents. Although there are also primary window on the rear in the kitchen and dinning room, they cannot cover the losage of the only window to the living room. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with subsection (g) of General Policy 2.
6.15 RDG 6.3.7 states that cars housld not block the entrance to the dwelling and a clear pathway should be provided at the entrance to the dwelling. The proposal would not able to keep a clear pathway from the pavement to the entrance door if two cars are parked at the same time.
Drainage Issues 6.16 As there is no significant change to the size of the hardened surface, there is no concern for additional surface water.
Pressure for Similar Developments 6.17 Although Highways Services states there are no significant road safety issues from this application alone, it is considered that if the majority of the properties were to take up a similar development, it would lead to the loss of the only pavement available on the street. This will creates confusion for pedestrians and creating undeserving risk to their safety. The proposal is therefore considered failing to provides safe and convenient access for all highway users where appropriate. Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with subsection (h) of General Policy 2.
6.18 The same logic for 6.15 applies to the impact on the street scene and the character of the area. As explained in 6.8 and 6.8, the proposal alone would harm the street scene and the character of the area, the harm would be amplified if more property on the same street would have similar development. Therefore, the proposal is considered failing to respects the site and surroundings in terms of the form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
Weighing the Benefit and the Negative Impact
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00876/B Page 6 of 6
6.19 In summary, the proposal would result in a net increase of one parking space but would harm the outlook of the property itself and harm street scene and the character of the area. If other properties on the same street were to proposal similar development, cumulatively, they would create additional safety concerns for pedestrians by causing confusion over the pavement and they would also harm the street scene and the character of the area.
6.20 The question now is whether the benefit of creating one additional parking space can outweigh the negative impacts. The properties on the street are currently not in a shortage of car parking space as there are plenty on the street and around the area. The creation of one additional parking space is not essential for the enjoyment of the dwelling. Therefore, it is considered that the benefit does not outweigh the negative impact created by this proposal.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal does not with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal.
8.0 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; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which 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 the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 01.10.2020
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