20 April 2012 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated authority under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
8, Nursery Avenue, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 4hg
The proposal involved demolishing a rendered front boundary wall (approximately 400mm high due to the sloping site) to form a vehicular access and parking space within the shallow concreted front garden of a two-storey terraced dwelling in a residential street.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer assessed that demolishing the front wall and parking vehicles in the front garden would create a visually intrusive gap in the consistent streetscene of terraced properties with uniform re…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/design/landscaping (b); not adversely affect townscape character (c); not harm amenity of residents or locality character (g); and not unacceptably affect road safety/traffic flows (i). Officer found proposal failed all these: wall removal/parking visually intrusive/out-of-character in uniform terraced streetscene; noise from manoeuvring harms neighbours; safety risks from reversing on sloping narrow road despite Highways view.
Recommend approval subject to contacting Network Operations Section prior to highway works including dropped kerbs
support the application as positive step for parking concerns, no noise concerns
support, no increased noise or nuisance, would ease street parking
The original application (12/00367/B) for creation of vehicular access and off-road parking in the front garden was refused by the planning authority for reasons including visual intrusion on the streetscene, removal of front wall harming character, noise pollution to neighbours, and adverse effects on traffic safety, contrary to General Policy 2(b), (c), (g), and (i). The appellant argued parking shortages in the area, necessity for family car use, neighbour support, tasteful implementation, and comparison to other changes. The inspector found the proposals would erode the attractive coherence of the terraced streetscene by removing a front wall and introducing car parking with necessary accommodation works, cause potential noise disturbance from manoeuvring despite neighbour support, and pose some risk to pedestrian and vehicle safety due to the site's shallowness and slope. These harms conflicted with General Policy 2(b), (c), (g), and (i), outweighing parking benefits and setting an undesirable precedent. The appeal was recommended for dismissal.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows that in historic terraced streets with coherent frontages, off-street parking proposals will likely fail despite parking shortages if they erode character, even with neighbour support. Applicants should prioritise retaining original walls and demonstrate no visual, amenity, or safety harms to avoid precedent risks.
Inspector: Alan Langton
