Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00947/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00947/B Applicant : Ms Michelle Garrod Proposal : Creation of a driveway and vehicular access Site Address : Ballachrink 3A Coburg Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3EH
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.09.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal would result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front landscaped garden and front boundary wall resulting in a detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and to the individual property all contrary to General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 2. The proposal would result in the potential net loss of on-street parking due to the width of the new access detriment to on street parking along Coburg Road.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The site represents the existing residential curtilage of 3A Coburg Road, Ramsey which is located on the northern side of Coburg Road. The property is a traditional two & half storey semi-detached property with accommodation within roof space. The front of the property has a front garden area which is made up of hardstanding with landscaped boarders. The front boundary consists of a boundary wall with railing above and a pedestrian gate to access the property. The property has no off street parking and relies on on-street parking along Coburg Road
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00947/B Page 2 of 5
2.0 PLANNING POLICIES 2.1 The application site is within an area of 'Predominantly Residential' under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, hereafter referred to as the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
2.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:-
2.3 General Policy 2 states: "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: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
2.4 Residential Design Guide June 2021 - Section 6.3 "FRONT GARDENS AND DRIVEWAYS"
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 The application seeks approval for the creation of a driveway and vehicular access. The works would involve the total removal of the front boundary wall/pedestrian gate creating a access 7.1m in width. The existing landscaping would be removed and replaced in the main by a paved hardstanding to create on-site parking.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highways Services make the following comments (29.07.2021): "The application seeks to create an off-street parking space to the front of the dwelling, reducing the number of cars parked on Coburg Road which already has a large number of vehicles parked on both sides.
The proposal would see the replacement of the entire front garden and path to hardstanding with the access being the full width, from boundary to boundary. The applicant has provided a visibility splay drawing, however, it is incorrectly drawn. Some elements of the drawing are correct, with the 2.4m setback coming from the edge of the carriageway and the extent of the
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00947/B Page 3 of 5
visibility splays meeting the nearside kerbline. Whilst the applicant was right to use a 2.4m setback, it appears there has been an issue with the scaling when drawing. The setback distance labelled as 2.4m is actually some 5.1m, meaning visibility from this point if drawn correctly would be minimal. In addition to this error, the visibility splays have been drawn crossing over numerous third party lands, of which the applicant has no control over and cannot guarantee visibility.
The visibility splays should be redrawn and submitted again. The setback distance should again be drawn from the edge of carriageway using a more accurate 2.4m measurement. Alternatively, as Coburg Road is a low speed environment due to the parked cars on both sides, a 2m setback distance will also be acceptable. The splays must be drawn over applicant owned land or the highway only, with any obstruction within the splays being a maximum height of 1.05m. The pillar within the land of 2a may also need to be removed or lowered through agreement if it proves to be in the way of visibility, as it appears to be taller than the 1.05m maximum.
The internal arrangements of the proposal are acceptable. The access width is 7.17m which is more than adequate for vehicular and pedestrian access. The driveway measures 7.17m x 6.60m at its smallest point. This is sufficient size to provide two off-street parking spaces, meeting the Strategic Plan minimum parking requirements, and cars can be parked far enough away from the dwelling as to not cause any amenity or accidental damage concerns. The proposed surface is block paved which is bound and consolidated reducing the risk of loose material being brought onto the highway. The applicant has also proposed an electric car charging point, supporting the islands carbon emissions reduction aims.
The Applicant/Developer shall provide run off/surface water drainage where necessary to prevent water from flowing out onto or damaging the public road, such as where a driveway slopes down towards the road. Similarly, on construction of the vehicular access, the existing road drainage must either be retained or an effective alternative scheme provided at the Applicant's/Developer's expense on a satisfactory arrangement being drawn up and agreed with the Highway Services' Drainage team.
If approved, the alteration to the highway, in the form of creating a new access, will require a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement to be made post planning consent.
Highway Services request the visibility splay drawing is re-submitted once corrections have been made.
Recommendation: Request additional information/revisions.
5.2 Ramsey Commissioners comment (26.08.2021): "We have no objection to the application however we would request that double yellow lines be put across the frontage of the property to prevent parking. Coburg Road is a narrow road with vehicles parked on both sides causes issue for the movement of the refuse wagon. Having no parking in front of this property will allow a waiting space for vehicles unable to get passed the loading refuse wagon or for the refuse wagon itself as it manoeuvres along the road."
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issue in this case is the potential visual impact of the proposed works to the street scene and the potential impact upon existing on street parking.
Potential visual impact to the street scene 6.2 Generally the Department seeks that at least 50% of the lawned/landscaped areas are preserved to ensure frontage of properties are not totally hard surfaced, which can result in the appearance of frontages of properties being essential car parks adversely impacted the visual amenities of the street scenes and the individual property. In this case, the proposal would
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00947/B Page 4 of 5
result in all of the front area being paved and the removal of the front boundary wall/railings which are a traditional form, which separates the property from the highway. The proposal also reduces significantly the opportunity for any landscaping which has a beneficial impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene and the individual property.
6.3 Further, Section 6.3 of the Residential Design Guide indicates that:
"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.
Gardens can also make an important contribution to local biodiversity and can contribute to carbon sequestration and climate change adaptation, providing natural flood risk mitigation and other ecosystem services."
6.4 Accordingly, this proposal would result in exactly what the Department seeks to prevent. The proposal would be contrary to the Residential Design Guide, but also General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g).
Potential impact upon existing on street parking 6.5 Furthermore, the proposal would potentially have a net loss, or at least no gain in parking in the area, given the size of the access and the resulting loss of off street parking due to the new access which could result in at least 2 and maybe 3 off street parking spaces (depending on how cars are parked at a time).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would fail to comply with the relevant policies of General Policy 2 (b), (c) & (g) of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021 therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 above who should be given Interested Person Status __
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00947/B Page 5 of 5
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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 22.09.2021
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal