Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01078/B Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/01078/B Applicant : Mr Terence & Mrs Iuliane Connor Proposal : Creation of a driveway and vehicular access Site Address : Thanehurst Tromode Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5EH
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 20.10.2021 Site Visit : 20.10.2021 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.10.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The site is almost on a junction that is a major traffic and in both local and wider traffic network. The proposal will increase the risk of delays and accidents at this junction and is not considered safe for either the applicant nor other road users.
R 2. This application is considered failing to comply with General Policy 2 (i) of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
DoI Flood Risk Management Division __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Thanehurst, Tromode Road, Douglas, a two-storey mid-terrace dwelling located on the north corner of Bary Hill and Tromode Road.
1.2 There is no dropped curb to this terrace. The front garden of the property is paved. There is a short wall and tall hedges on the front boundary.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01078/B Page 2 of 4
2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the front boundary wall and the creation of a driveway.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
4.2 In terms of strategic policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.3 General Policy 2: "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".
4.4 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.5 RDG 6 "The Wider Site" sets out some key considerations regarding boundary treatment, trees, the driveway, and front garden.
4.6 RDG 6.3 "Front Gardens and Driveways" states that front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm. While increased car ownership resulting in increased demand for car parking space, the creation of an off-street parking space normally requires the provision of new access, which can result in the loss of at least one on- street parking space. Proposals, which do not result in a net benefit, are unlikely to be supported.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council does not object 24/09/21.
5.2 DoI Highway Services object to this application (07/10/2021). The comments state that the proposal would "increase the conflict of traffic movements close to a signal controlled junction with detrimental impact on its operation and where there would be restricted visibility for emerging vehicles resulting in additional safety risks and inconvenience for all users of the highway."
5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management Division wrote in requesting additional information (11/10/2021). The comment states that the proposed driveway has no drainage arrangement to intercept surface water runoff.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01078/B Page 3 of 4
6.1 The main consideration for this application are the principle of the development, its impact on the character and street scene of the area and on highway safety.
Principle of the Development 6.2 As the development is to increase parking spaces, the foundation of such development is the net increase of parking spaces for the street as a whole, as indicated in the RDG. This means after the development, the sum of the number of parking spaces created off-street and the number of parking space remaining on-street should be more than the number of existing parking space available on street.
6.3 As there is no on-street parking available at the moment, there is no loss of public parking space.
6.4 The proposal will create two parking space. The proposed parking space satisfies the recommendation in Manual for Manx Road. It is also to be noted that the additional parking space is for the enjoyment of the applicant only. In summary, the proposal would create a net two-space increase to the number of parking spaces available. This weighs in the applications favour.
6.5 The next test is whether over 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will be lost. After the proposal, the driveway counts for 100% of the entire front garden. Even though the existing garden is already tiled, harden surface for the proposed driveway would mean conversion back to garden is not possible. Therefore, according to section 6.3.4 of the RDG, as the proposal will result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing lawned/landscaped garden area. It is principally unfavourable.
Visual Amenities 6.6 RDG also states that for the replacement of front garden with parking space, there is a need to weigh the benefit created to the applicant against the impact of the changed surface on the property and its surroundings. Such replacement should only be allowed when there is little negative impact, or the benefits overwhelm the negative impacts created as "front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm".
6.7 The most important consideration for such a proposal is whether it will shift the boundary of the public realm. If so, whether such a shift is acceptable? For Thanehurst, this transition is vague but clear: road - pavement - boundary wall/hedge - garden - dwelling. The boundary wall is the clear in separating the public domain from private property. The proposed driveway, on the other hand, will remove this separation completely. This is not in favour of the proposal.
Highway Safety 6.8 As Highway Services has objected to this application, it is considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways and therefore is not acceptable.
Drainage 6.9 As DoI Flood Risk Management Division has commented request drainage details, it is considered that the drainage arrangement is lacking at the moment.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered failing to comply with General Policy 2 (i) of the Strategic Plan and Residential Design Guide. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal.
7.2 The site is almost on a junction that is a major traffic nod in both local and wider traffic network. The proposal increase the risk of delay and accident at this junction and is not considered safe for either the applicant nor other road users.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01078/B Page 4 of 4
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 which 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 a Principal Planner 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: 27.10.2021
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
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