DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00223/B Applicant: Mr Glenn & Mrs Elaine Stott Proposal: Widening of existing access and creation of additional parking (retrospective) Site Address: 2 Coronation Court Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3EF Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken: 20.03.2019 Site Visit: 20.03.2019 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.04.2019 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The additional car parking area at the front of the dwelling would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, contrary to IOMSP General Policy 2 (b,c & g). As noted in the DEFA Residential Design Guidance document, there is a presumption against proposals which would see the total loss of landscaped or planted front garden.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached single storey dwelling on Coronation Court, Ramsey. The front elevation is set approximately 4 metres back from Coronation Court and faces similar detached dwellings in the cul-de-sac. There is a driveway to the eastern side of the site bounding No.3 which links to a concrete yard at the rear. There is parking space in the yard and along the driveway for 2-3 vehicles. The front garden area of the dwelling has been recently concreted to provide an additional 2 spaces.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application is retrospective for the concreting of the 4m wide front garden to provide additional parking spaces on the site. The concrete area covers the whole frontage of the residential curtilage up to the boundary line with No.1. - 2.2 The application is retrospective, retrospective planning applications are considered without prejudice to the fact that the works have already been commenced or completed - this is given no weight in the determination.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The proposal site is situated in an area covered by the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. Within this plan it is zoned as Predominantly Residential (Map 2, South). - 3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 sets out some general policies which should be considered when assessing an application in an area zoned as such. General Policy 2 (in part) is key to this application; "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;"

3.3 The recently published DEFA Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) is also useful when considering householder alterations and will be used in the assessment of this application.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 This application has been submitted seeking to regularise the driveway/garden works carried out and the subject of planning enforcement case 19/00012/DUD.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objections to the application (25.03.19).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are the potential impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and street scene, parking and highway safety. - 6.2 Character and Appearance

• 6.2.1 The matter of the impact of large areas of hard surfacing on the frontages of dwellings is discussed at length in section 6.3 of the Residential Design Guidance. Front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. They can enhance the privacy of a dwelling, as well as filtering out the noise and air pollutants produced by pedestrians and motorised traffic. Front gardens with perimeter walls, hedges or fences can offer safer spaces in which children can play and they often contribute to the natural habitat of wildlife. Urban green space has a positive effect on health and wellbeing, by enhancing sensory and aesthetic awareness. The concern is that any works would harm the visual amenity of both the dwelling itself, but also the wider street scene. Whilst this site is within a cul-de-sac and largely out of view from outside Coronation Court, nevertheless, the presence of landscaping and vegetation can contribute to the positive character and appearance of an urban area and reduce the built up appearance.
• 6.2.2 The Design Guidance published by the Department states the following, "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 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. It is important that the design of a driveway maintains a balance between hard and soft landscaping and contributes positively to the street scene."
• 6.2.3 It is considered that the proposal does indeed result in the frontage appearing as one large car parking area and as a result negatively impacts the overall character and appearance of the area. In this respect, the proposal is at odds with IOMSP General Policy 2 (b,c and g).

6.3 Parking and Highway safety

• 6.3.1 The provision of the additional parking spaces within the site is likely to reduce the demand for on-street parking in Coronation Court and the wider area - which would in turn increase the highway safety and accessibility of the area. However, the previously existing parking provision of at least 2 spaces within the curtilage meets the parking standards for a standard residential dwelling as per Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. It is acknowledged that manoeuvrability in the cul-de-sac is somewhat limited, and the current occupants of the dwelling may well have parking demand in excess of 2 spaces. That being said, 2 spaces is regarded to be reasonable and sufficient, particularly for a centrally located urban dwelling.
• 6.3.2 The applicant references drop-down kerbs in the site layout plan and statement. In order to drop the kerbs, a Section 109 agreement must be applied for to, and agreed with, Department of Infrastructure Highways Services.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 Whilst the provision of additional on-site parking normally alleviates the demand for street parking, in this case, the benefits of this would be outweighed by the negative visual impact and potential for an unacceptable precedent. Partial hard surfacing of the garden may have been more appropriate. The proposal is unacceptable on balance and recommended for refusal.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 in Article 6(4) 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 : 12.04.2019 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.