Loading document...
Application No.: 17/01138/B Applicant: Mrs Mary Joyce Proposal: Erection of glazed porch on side of property to replace portico Site Address: 49A Ballaquark Douglas Isle of Man IM2 2ES Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 17.11.2017 Site Visit: 17.11.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to drawings 164/51/1, 164/51/2 and 164/51/3 all received on 31st October, 2017. _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons none _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 49a Ballaquark, which includes a semidetached bungalow sited on the east of the highway in this Douglas residential estate. - 1.2 The dwelling has a driveway in front of a detached garage that is set behind the rear building line; this driveway is 2.6m in width, and for roughly half its more-than-15m length is set higher than the adjacent dwelling's driveway. The difference in height increases the nearer
one gets to the garage door. Roughly 8m along this driveway is a small open-fronted porch that all-but encloses the front door to the dwelling, which is situated in its side gable wall. The steps up to the front door are 0.6m in width, effectively making the driveway at this point 2.0m in width.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the replacement of the canopy porch with a larger porch: this would be 1.64m in depth (i.e. reducing the width of the highway at this point to roughly 1.0m), 2.4m in length and with a height of 2.7m. It would have a flat roof and be finished in a mixture of glazed lights and uPVC panels. - 2.2 The application includes a supporting letter submitted by the agent, who states that while the proposal would in theory result in the amount of parking, the aforementioned widths and unguarded drop between the two side-by-side driveways means that "there is no loss of usable parking. The width of the drive is as the property was built".
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has not been the subject of previous applications considered to be of material relevance to the assessment of this current proposal.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan. The nature of the development proposed is such that it should be assessed against Paragraph 8.12.1 General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services indicate that they have no interest in the application (16.11 17). - 5.2 Douglas Borough Council have no objection (14.11.17).
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 As the development proposed could not be said to affect neighbouring privacy to any significant degree, the two key issues are the impact of the extension in design terms and highway safety terms. - 6.2 The Ballaquark dwellings all share a common architectural language without being of any particular merit. Many have been extended or altered to varying degrees in the past, and often in fairly low-key ways such as that proposed here. The porch extension is small in actual and relative terms, and its visual impact limited as a result. The use of uPVC and a flat roof may be seen by some as unfortunate, but its limited scale and use of complementary materials with the surrounding built environment is such that it is considered it would be difficult to defend a refusal on design grounds. It is also noted that the existing porch does not have a wholly different visual impact, albeit that it does have a pitched roof. It is also in a prominent position on the highway given that the dwelling sits further forward than the adjacent dwelling. This conclusion is therefore quite balanced. - 6.3 Of more concern is the highway safety situation. It is accepted that the existing driveway is unlikely to be easily usable by all drivers, and it is further accepted that the driveway is 'as built'. However, it must be borne in mind that the fact that a lower space standard was in place previously is not reason enough to warrant approval to a development that would further worsen the existing situation. It is not clear when the existing porch was built, but it is judged to be sufficiently large to comprise 'development' and therefore would have required planning approval.
6.4 There are cars that would be narrow enough to use this driveway, and indeed the growth of electric vehicles, which are often smaller than those with a combustion engine, is such that it may be the case that a 2m-wide driveway may become more usable than is perhaps the case now. That hypothesis aside, though, it remains a matter of fact that some cars, and some car users could use the driveway - and associated garage - in their current form. This would not be the case if the proposed porch were to be built. The garage would remain accessible to push- and motor-bikes. - 6.5 With regards the requirements of the Strategic Plan, the dwelling has two bedrooms. This means that the parking requirement for the property is two parking spaces. The driveway as proposed to be foreshortened would be roughly 6.5m in length back from the highway, sufficient for the parking of a single car. The reality, though, is that it is unlikely that the existing driveway will be regularly used and accordingly an objection on the grounds of the loss of parking would be difficult to sustain at appeal.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 While there may be some conflict with the parking standards as set out in the Strategic Plan in numerical terms, it is not, in a real sense, judged to be unacceptable in this regard.
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:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 28.11.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
