Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00767/B
Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00767/B Applicant : Mr John Keen Proposal : Creation of a driveway and vehicular access Site Address : 1 Victoria Place Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4ET
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 15.08.2017 Site Visit : 15.08.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of 1, Victoria Place which fronts onto this highway and sides onto Victoria Road. Many properties in Victoria Place stretch all the way back to Stanley Place but this property, together with its neighbours to the north, numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5, back onto properties which front onto Stanley Place. The property is a handsome one which has a distinctive heavy parapet on the front elevation, characteristic also of the remainder of the terrace. Numbers 1 and 2 have their original front gardens whereas numbers 3, 4 and 5 have their front areas cleared for vehicular parking and at the time of the site visit there was a vehicle parked in the front garden area of number 3. Number 5 is the headquarters of the Samaritans.
1.2 The other side of Victoria Place is occupied by a variety of houses, workshops, garages and the rear of properties which front onto Victoria Terrace.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the removal of part of the front garden wall and its hedge and the creation of a hard surfaced area to be used for vehicular parking. There will be a nett increase of a space as there is no parking permitted along the lane which is single vehicle width. A little over half of the garden will remain. The parking area will be 4.4m long and 3.8m wide.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential. As such, the following Strategic plan policies are considered relevant:
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 and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."
PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00767/B
Page 2 of 3
4.1 Planning approval was granted for the replacement of windows and for a rear extension (06/00238/B and 09/01493/B). The parking areas associated with numbers 3, 4 and 5 do not appear to have been the subject of any recent planning application (after 1984).
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council express concern that the parking space is close to the corner and may pose highway safety problems and ask that the views of Highway Services are sought before any decision is taken (04.08.017).
5.2 Highway Services object to the application, expressing concern that the space is not the required length for a vehicle which could result in vehicles over-spilling the lane which is only 4m wide (15.08.17).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposal results in any adverse visual impact to the character of the area and if so, whether there are any benefits resulting from the development which would over-ride these concerns. Also, it is relevant to consider whether there would be any adverse impacts from the development in terms of highway safety.
6.2 In terms of the visual impact of the proposal, the removal of existing boundary walls seldom enhances the appearance of a property where such boundaries are characterised by distinctive walling which is also found further along the same streetscene. In this case, the walling continues to number 2 but then ceases from number 3 onwards with a resulting change in character and one that is not necessarily a positive one. Numbers 1 and 2 are more visible from Victoria Road and arguably the retention of these sections of boundary walling are more important to the character of the area.
6.3 The area is very mixed with small scale domestic properties sitting alongside much more modern industrial and commercial properties, many of which have open frontages with no boundaries. Arguably, where attractive characteristics exist, it is more important that they should be retained which would not be the case here.
6.4 Of possibly greater importance is the impact on highway safety. Whilst a vehicle was seen parked within the front garden of number 3, this was not a long or large vehicle and it seemed to fit into the space without encroaching onto the lane. There was not much space for access to the boot. If planning approval is granted for the creation of a parking space, there can be no practicable control over which cars park there and if vehicles which are longer are parked there, there is little that could be done in planning terms to address this and whilst it may be an offence under Highways legislation, the practicality of dealing with incidents of over-spilling when they occur can often not be dealt with in a legal sense, immediately, causing inconvenience and frustration for those using the lane as well as potential highway safety issues.
6.5 For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposed removal of the garden wall and creation of vehicular parking, would create an adverse visual impact on the appearance and character of the area and would create a parking space which has insufficient length to safely and conveniently park a standard sized car and could result in inconvenience to other users of the lane and potentially a reduction in highway safety. As such, the application is recommended for refusal.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.08.2017
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00767/B
Page 3 of 3
Reasons for Refusal:
R 1. The proposed removal of the garden wall and creation of vehicular parking, would create an adverse visual impact on the appearance and character of the area and would create a parking space which has insufficient length to safely and conveniently park a standard sized car and could result in inconvenience to other users of the lane and potentially a reduction in highway safety
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 24.08.2017
Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Director of Planning and Building Control
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