Loading document...
3 Strathallan Crescent
Douglas
IM2 4NR
Planning and Building Control Directorate
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture,
Murray House,
Mount Havelock,
Douglas,
IM1 2SF
19th April 2022
Dear Sirs,
22/00323/B) in association with application 22/00324/CON 2 Strathallan Crescent Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NR - Demolition of wall between access lane, reposition front gate posts and formation of electronic charging car parking bay in the front garden
Our comments in relation to this application are as follows:
The red line on the location plan implies the shared access is within the boundary of No 2. This is simply not the case. We appreciate the red line needs to encompass the full extent of the development area however the existing common shared access road is not defined on the drawing, and as nothing is proposed behind the building line the red line should step back to the property boundary from thereon in.
Whilst not of particular concern the 2.4 \times 25\mathrm{m} visibility splay should be from the kerb line rather than the edge of the parking.
The proposal to remove the boundary wall to the communal use gated access situated between No 2 and No 3 is totally unacceptable.
The access laneway serves the well-used yard to the rear of our property where there is car parking, oil tanks and general rear access to our property. It also provides access to the rear of 2 other properties. We have used and maintained this laneway, on a daily basis (rear paved area to our property shown), since we purchased the property in 1999.
The proposal subsumes the communal access road into the garden of No 2, which with no clear demarcation, will appear as an extension to their property. This adversely affects the privacy of my property and the other two properties as we will be effectively traversing the garden of No 2 to gain access our rear yard facilities with the extent of the area of communal use land no longer defined as it currently is with the two boundary walls.
It will have an overbearing impact and cause loss of privacy to all properties including the applicants own property and fundamentally change the access arrangements that have been in place since the properties were built in the early 19th century. We and any future owner of our property or indeed the other two properties will undoubtedly feel very uncomfortable traversing what would appear to be the garden No 2, as well as oil and any other deliveries being potentially confusing as the gate will appear to be an access to No 2. Indeed would any future owner of No2 really want three other households driving/walking through their garden on a regular basis?
If the application was to be approved how would access rights of our property and the other two properties be clearly defined and safeguarded?
The test of good design in situations such as this is could both neighbours do the same thing. If we were to remove our boundary wall with the access lane too, the gardens for both properties would effectively appear merged. Is that desirable development in a conservation area such as this?
Introduction of car parking within this front garden will adversely affect my outlook and the character of the conservation area as a whole. The property is situated within an area that has ample on street parking with a resident permit system together with public EV charging points within close proximity.
The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 4A as it does not protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Conservation Area.
The proposal is also contrary to General Policy 2 as the development proposed:
(b) does not respect the site and surroundings in terms of landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
(c) adversely affects the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) affects adversely the amenity of local residents and the character of the locality; (k) does prejudice the use or development of adjoining land as the communal access will effectively be subsumed into the garden of No 2
Removing the boundary wall of a communal access is contrary to Environment Policy 35 which reads
"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development".
It is also contrary to Environment Policy 39 where the general presumption is in favour of retaining elements which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Strathallan Crescent is one of the earliest parts of the promenade dating back to the early 19th century. Contrary to Planning Policy Statement /01 and in particular Policy CA01 where features such as:-
are prime consideration in identifying conservation areas, the removal of the boundary wall and the effective removal of the communal space between the gardens will be detrimental for generations to come.
The introduction of car parking within this front garden will adversely affect the character of the conservation area as a whole.
The communal shared access is effectively removed by the proposal and appears to extend the applicant’s boundary.
This will adversely affect my privacy and have an overbearing impact on the use of my property and indeed that of the other two properties that have communal use of the land in question.
The proposal conflicts with planning polices for conservation areas
The proposal also conflicts with a number of strategic and general policies.
The applicant would not be disadvantaged by a refusal as there is ample on street parking immediately adjacent to the application site and Government provided EC charging bays have already been installed within walkable distance of the application site.
Signed,
Redacted
Redacted
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
