APPEAL NO 10/00191

PLANNING APPLICATION 10/01277

Appeal made by Mr A Thompson against the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the creation of a hard standing and vehicular access onto Victoria Road at Clarecourt, Marathon Road, Douglas IM2 4HL

1. I held an inquiry into the appeal on 16 March 2011. At the inquiry the Appellant was represented by Mr R Corkhill. The Planning Authority was represented by Mr I Brooks.

THE APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2. The appeal site is Clarecourt, a dwelling situated on Marathon Road, whose rear garden stretches to Victoria Road, where the boundary is a 2m high stone wall. To the right, viewed from the road, this wall has two gate pillars, with the space between filled by a stone wall with a pedestrian doorway. To the left, that is, south of the site, is a cleared area on which planning permission exists for the erection of 5 apartments. This has a boundary wall along much of its frontage to Victoria Road. This is a lower wall, about 1.2m high. The section adjacent to the appeal site is rendered, then beyond an opening it becomes a stone wall, before returning to render. The development permission shows the retention or replacement of a wall on this frontage, rendered and painted.

3. To the north of the site the wall to the adjacent property carried on as a high stone wall, but has at some time been broken through, such that a ragged edge is left to the opening. Beyond this the wall reduces in height, and becomes a retaining wall to the site of apartments behind. This wall is rendered and painted white.

4. Victoria Road is a through route to the outskirts of Douglas and beyond. It is a bus route. The carriageway is 6.5-7m wide. In the vicinity of the appeal site parking takes place on the opposite side of the road. There are waiting restrictions along the appeal site frontage and to either side.

5. The development proposed is the formation of an access through the wall at the left hand of the site's frontage to Victoria Road. The gateway would be set back 5m into the frontage, and the roadside wall would be lowered to 1m high either side, for a distance of 1.5m to the left, and 4m to the gate pillar on the right. Within the site the walls would return to the proposed gate, rising to about 1.5m at the gateway, which would be closed by boarded timber gates.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

The material points are: 6. The existing access to the dwelling was from Marathon Road. It was narrow; could accept only one car, and allowed no turning space. 7. An earlier application { }^{1} for an access at this point had been refused, and following the subsequent appeal the Inspector did not share concerns over the principle of an access, but agreed that the detailed design was defective. The present proposal sought to address those concerns, and no objection was now made to it by the Highways Division. In consultation no concerns had been raised about impacts on traffic flow or pedestrian safety. 8. The Planning Committee however refused permission, firstly on highway grounds; and secondly a detrimental visual effect on a continuous frontage. There was however no continuous frontage. Arguably the proposed alterations may improve the street scene

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The material points are: 9. The Planning Committee had considered that the access would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic; and that the gap formed in the wall would be detrimental to the street scene. 10. The site is not in a Conservation Area.

THE CASE FOR INTERESTED PARTIES

The material points are: 11. Mrs G Richard & Mr C Jones, 52 Victoria Road support the Planning Committee's refusal reasons. C Q Savage, 56, Victoria Road likewise maintains previous objections. Mrs B Cannell MHK considers that the set back of the gates would have a marked impact on the street scene, since the wall presently ran evenly along the boundaries of adjacent properties. The creation of an access would cause traffic flow problems, given the parking in the area which causes traffic congestion. If this access was permitted, others would have to be allowed, with similar undesirable consequences.

INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS

12. My colleague considered the principle of access at this point and did not find any objection, provided the shortcomings of that design were addressed. Amendments have been made to the satisfaction of the Highways Division. The Planning Committee has however refused permission on highway grounds but has provided no evidence or witness at the inquiry to support [^0] [^0]: { }^{1} 10 / 0003 \mathrm{~B}

their view. That is unreasonable, and gives no reason to refuse permission in this case.

13. With regard to the impact of the proposal on the street scene, the alterations would not be a break in a continuous wall, but a change to a walled frontage of varying heights and finishes, with breaks in it at various points. I agree that the access would make a change in character, since it requires the gate to be set back. Bearing in mind that this locality has no special protection, I am not convinced that the appeal proposal would be a harmful change to the street scene.

14. It will be my recommendation that the appeal is allowed. The Planning Authority suggested two conditions, which I commend.

RECOMMENDATION

15. I recommend that the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions discussed above.

David Ward BSc(Hons) CEng MICE FCIHT Inspector.

24 March 2011