15 April 2010 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
28, Albany Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 3ng
The site is a two-storey semi-detached house in an established residential area with a small dwarf brick wall matching the dwelling's finishes at the front. The proposal involved paving part of the front garden for two off-street parking spaces, removing part of the boundary wall for a 3.77 metre wide access onto Alban…
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 the proposal against General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, which require development to respect surroundings, not adversely affect tow…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/design/landscaping, not adversely affect townscape character, amenity, or highway safety. Officer found proposal fails clauses c (townscape character) and g (locality character) due to wall removal and vehicle intrusion harming streetscene in residential/conservation context.
Environment Policy 35
Permits only development preserving or enhancing conservation area character, protecting special features. Proposal's paving and wall removal deemed detrimental to streetscape and area appearance, failing to preserve/enhance; extra consideration required post-2003 designation.
Do not oppose subject to condition requiring contact with Network Operations Section prior to highway works including dropped kerbs.
No objection.
The original application for formation of a parking area and vehicular access onto Albany Road was refused by the Senior Planning Officer on 13 April 2010 due to adverse impact on the appearance and character of the Douglas (Selborne Drive) Conservation Area, contrary to GP2 and EP35. The appellants argued no highway objections, existing precedents for similar parking, confused council precedent reasoning, parking benefits from removing cars from street, and sympathetic design. The inspector acknowledged no highway safety harm, noted some precedents but distinguished them due to pre-conservation area status and site differences, recognised parking pressures but concluded the proposal would not preserve or enhance the conservation area's character or appearance, especially considering cumulative impacts and the semi-detached pair asymmetry. Despite a finely balanced case, the inspector recommended refusal be confirmed, and the Minister accepted this on 9 August 2010.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows strict application of EP35 in conservation areas even for minor parking proposals; precedents must be directly comparable post-policy adoption; parking demand alone insufficient without clear preservation/enhancement of character/appearance.
Inspector: Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI
