Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00769/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00769/B Applicant : Mr Brian Theobald Proposal : Extension of dropped kerb to widen existing vehicular access and provide additional off street parking space including re- surfacing of existing hardstanding Site Address : Seabridge 16 Bowring Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3EJ
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.10.2022 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Residential Design Guide July 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents and drawing no. 001, 100, 101 which have been received on 20th July 2022.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00769/B Page 2 of 5
3 Coronation Court, Ramsey
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Seabridge, 16 Bowring Road, Ramsey, a detached dwelling located on the east of the junction of Bowring Road and Windsor Road.
1.2 The rear of the property is on Coronation Court, a cul-de-sac with 6 detached dwellings.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Alterations and extensions was APPROVED under PA 92/00638/B.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as predominantly residential in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998.
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 3, 5 o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (m) o Community Policy 7 and 10
PPS and NPD 4.3 There is no Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 6.3 Front Gardens and Driveways
5.2 Manual for Manx Roads provides best practise and technical details of how to ensure highways are accessible, safe, inclusive and serviceable.
5.3 Appendix C Parking Standards sets out technical details of different parking spaces. C 6.19 states that a space parallel and adjacent to the footway should be 6.0m long and 2.0m wide.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners has not commented at the time of the report (18.10.2022).
6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (04.08.2022) under the condition that drainage details be approved before commencement.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00769/B Page 3 of 5
6.3 Owners/Occupiers of 3 Coronation Court wrote in objection to this application (16.08.2022). The comment states a few concerns: o The proposal would further reduce the number of available parking spaces for the residents on and visitors to the cul-de-sac; o The visibility of the proposed driveway would be poor if the hedges around it are overgrown, which would endanger pedestrians and cyclists; o There is little manoeuvre space which creates further danger when the cars have to reverse on the road. o The proposed dropped curb would harm the character of the area.
7.0 ASSESSMENT Point of Clarification 7.1 The objection received has listed a number of arguments regarding the actions and personal condition of the applicant. These are not material planning considerations and would not be able to bare any weight in the assessment.
Elements of the Assessment 7.2 The main consideration for this application are the principle of the development, its impact on the character and streetscene of the area and on highway safety.
7.3 While the proposal is for a driveway at the rear of the property, the connected road are the frontage for other dwellings on the cul-de-sac. Therefore, it is considered that Section 6.3 of the RDG is still applicable. However, the strict requirement regarding remaining garden area space will not be applicable here. In the meantime, its impact on the streetscene will still be carefully assessed.
Principle of the Development 7.4 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 spaces remaining on-street should be more than the number of existing parking spaces available on street.
7.5 The road is available for parking on one side. The proposal is to remove approx. 3.5m section available for parallel parking space, which could lead to the removal of one on-street parking space. In the meantime, it is to be noticed that the road is a cul-de-sac and the most frequent use are its residents, including occupiers of the application site.
7.6 The proposal will create one parking space. The proposed parking space satisfies the recommendation in the Manual for Manx Road. It is also to be noted that the additional parking space is for the enjoyment of the applicant only.
7.7 While the 50%-remaining-garden requirement is not considered applicable here. The visual amenities still need to be assessed. Therefore, the principle of the application will depend on the assessment of detailed elements.
Visual Amenities 7.8 RDG also states that for the replacement of the front garden with a 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". In this application, it's about this applies to the rear boundary of the site and the front boundary of the cul-de-sac.
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00769/B Page 4 of 5
7.9 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 this application, this transition around the cul-de-sac is clear: road - pavement - boundary fence/hedge - garden/driveway - dwelling. The removed section of the hedge only counts for a small portion of the hedges around the cul-de-sac. Therefore, it is considered that there is no negative impact on the character and street scene of the area.
Highway Safety 7.10 As Highway Services does not oppose this application, it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.
Planning Balance Assessment 7.11 There is no negative impact on the character of the area and highway safety. However, there is no net increase in parking space alone in the cul-de-sac. On the one hand, the argument can be made that one car off the road is beneficial for the cul-de-sac. On the other hand, the total number of on-road parking is limited given it is a short cul-de-sac. One increased space for the applicant is a lost space that every other resident on the cul-de-sac can use.
7.12 Looking at the cul-de-sac as a whole, at the moment, every house has at least one off- road parking space, either on the driveway or in a garage. The loss of one space would not push the cul-de-sac into an instant parking space shortage. Therefore, it is considered that the application is principally acceptable.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Residential Design Guide July 2021. Therefore, it is recommended for an approval.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 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 which 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.
9.2 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. __
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.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00769/B Page 5 of 5
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 21.10.2022
Determining officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
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