Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00913/B Applicant: Mr William McDowell Proposal: Erection of a dwelling with associated parking Site Address: Land Off Lane At Rear Of Westminster Drive Douglas Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken: 24.10.2018 Site Visit: 24.10.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.02.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Locating a dwelling here would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity through the comings and goings associated with the dwelling and also owing to the impact a dwelling of this size adjacent to the garden of the neighbouring 13 Westminster Drive would have on the enjoyment of the garden associated with that existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling is therefore contrary to parts (g) and (h) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The dwelling proposed would have insufficient outdoor amenity space and an inadequate outlook from its principle rooms, contrary to paragraph 7.34.1 of Environmental Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. The hardstanding area proposed for the parking of vehicles does not meet the minimum length standard for a parking space for two private vehicles, which is the required number of parking spaces for a two-bedroom dwelling. The application is therefore contrary to part (h) of General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. Due in part to the proposed hardstanding area not meeting the minimum length standard for a parking space for two private vehicles and due to the narrow size of the existing lane, it is likely that parked cars would overhang the proposed parking area, encroaching onto the lane; the proposal would therefore prevent the proper access to the lane and provide insufficient turning and manoeuvring space, which would have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways and prevent its proper use. The application is therefore contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 6(4):
17 Westminster Drive, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 4EJ, as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application site is a parcel of land to the rear of 15 Westminster Drive, behind the dwellings to the south eastern side of the highway, to the north west of Ballakermeen High School. - 1.2 The site doesn't appear to have an active use, though at the time of visiting the site had been cleared and the some groundworks had been carried out and construction materials stored on the site. - 1.3 This row of properties along this side of Westminster Drive appeared to have these areas to the rear of the properties as additional amenity space for the dwelling, with some including garages/outbuildings. The applicant also owns 15 Westminster Drive. - 1.4 Although the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area and the Selbourne Drive Conservation Area both include parts of Westminster Drive, the site is not located within a Conservation Area. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal is for dwelling with associated parking; the property will be in the form of a small dormer bungalow with a front facing gable. The frontage is 4.98m wide with a side gable jutting out an additional 1.2m, set back from the forward most part of the front elevation by 2.87m; the building will be 10.99m long and 5.5m tall to the pitch of the roof. - 2.2 The design of the property includes a Victorian style bay window, stone quoin corners and a brick porthole feature; the elevations of the building are finished in render, but no indication has been given regarding the materials to be used on the roof. The accommodation includes an open plan living/dining room and kitchen, and small downstairs toilet and utility room on the ground floor and bathroom, storage and two bedrooms, one of which includes an ensuite, on the first floor. - 2.3 There would be a relatively small garden associated with the dwelling comprising of a grassed area and patio area to the rear, partially grassed front garden with parking spaces and grassed strips to the sides of the property with a tarmac footpath. Two parking spaces have been shown located directly outside of the bay window and are stated on the plan as being 5.5m x 2.6m. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site is designated within an 'Area of Predominantly Residential Use' under the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area. In addition, the site is included in the Draft Area Plan for the East as suitable for residential use. - 3.2 General Policy 2 applies to development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning. Such proposals will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.3 Environment Policy 42 applies to new development in existing settlements; this states that proposals 'must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans'. - 3.4 Paragraph 7.34.1 introduces Environmental Policy 42 and states that 'Every settlement in the Island has its own individual character and identity which needs to be conserved and enhanced. If such characteristics and qualities are not to be lost, any new development must be appropriate to the locale in terms of scale, siting, design, relationship with other buildings and land uses….In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to:
3.5 It continues by providing the following definitions and explanations, which are also defined in Appendix 1: -
3.6 Appendix 6 provides guidance on the provision of open space and states:
"A.6.1.1 Applicants are asked to note that all new residential development must provide adequate standards of residential amenity, including private open space such as gardens or shared amenity spaces for apartments, and bin storage areas. Meeting the open space requirements in this Appendix does not exempt applicants from providing adequate private open space".
4.1 The previous planning applications on the site are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. Planning permission ref: - 16/00283/B sought and gained approval for the erection of a building that would provide a pair of double garages on the site. The approved building has a width of 6.3m, a depth of 10.0m and a maximum height of 2.8m. The garage would have an external finish of smooth cement render painted or dash render, and had a flat roof design. The larger of the two was for the applicant and the smaller to be rented for private (i.e. ancillary to residential) use to fund the build. Application permitted on 21st June 2016.
4.2 Planning application ref: - 17/01146/B for the Erection of a dormer bungalow with off street parking was refused 30th November 2017. The application under consideration has been submitted in an attempt to address the reasons for refusing the previous application.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division states that they wish the application be deferred, in the letter dated 10 October 2018. The comments continue: -
'Section 10.3 of the 'Manual for Manx Roads' (MfMR) design guide specifies the minimum criteria for fire engines to gain access to a dwelling. It states that fire vehicles should not have to reverse more than 20 metres and the site is approximately 30m from the public highway. The applicant therefore needs to demonstrate that emergency access would be suitable for the development in line with the guidance, or discuss and agree the proposals with the emergency services. The application does not provide any information on how refuse collection would be undertaken for the proposed dwelling which is needed.
The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 2 spaces for a 2 bedroom dwelling. The MfMR specifies a driveway space should be at least 2.5m x 5.5m, and a 0.9m width pedestrian path is needed to the dwelling front door. However, it also states that the space width should be increased to 3m when adjacent to a boundary, and 6m in length when at right angles adjacent to the carriageway.
The 2 proposed spaces would each be 2.4m x 5.4m which is slightly below the required standard. The minimum aisle width for a car to turn in and out of a parking bay is an absolute minimum of
The visibility of the proposed site access would be limited to the left for cars exiting the site. However, it is acknowledged that the rear lane is narrow and a cul-de-sac, so visibility should therefore be sufficient on this occasion, particularly due to the site frontage being open without a boundary treatment'.
5.2 Douglas Borough Council have commented on this application and stated that they object, in the letter dated 27 September 2018. The comments continue: -
5.3 An objection has been submitted by the owner of an adjacent property, No.17 Westminster Drive whose address is given as 29, Devonshire Road; the principle planning points are as follows: -
6.1 The basis of this application relates to the previous application (17/01146/B) and the reasons for the refusal. The applicant has sought to address the reasons for refusal in turn, so the below assessment has been reviewed in the same manner.
6.2 The first refusal reason stated that the 'design of the dormer bungalow proposed is out of keeping with the surrounding built environment of Westminster Drive'. The proposed design for the previous application was considered not to be good quality design by the then case officer; they noted that the site would be visible from the highway and the proposed bungalow, 'particularly with its ungainly flat-roofed dormer and lack of any fenestration on the two longer elevations' would be inappropriate against the context of the well-defined rhythm and traditional nature of Westminster Drive. - 6.3 The design of the proposed building has been amended to reflect design features found in the vicinity. These features include the use of cornerstones, a bay window and porthole on the front elevation, and more traditional dormer windows on the side elevation. The building is not directly adjacent to the highway; however it will be visible from a public vantage point. The revised design provides more interest for the external appearance of the dwelling and somewhat reflects the traditional design of the properties on Westminster Drive. Therefore visual impact on the character of the area is unlikely to be significant. - 6.4 Refusal reason two stated that 'Locating a dwelling here would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity through the comings and goings associated with the dwelling and also owing to the impact a dwelling of this size adjacent to the garden of the neighbouring 13 Westminster Drive would have on the enjoyment of the garden associated with that existing dwelling'. - 6.5 The site is zoned as residential and therefore the principle for development to create a residential unit is acceptable in the broadest terms. However the principle of the creating a residential unit on this site is not automatic as any development on this land would fall within the definition of 'Backland development' which is specified in appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan as 'Development on land at the back of existing properties, usually on what were the back gardens, and often without a separate road frontage'. - 6.6 Under Environmental Policy 42 it states that backland development may be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings. The previous application included comments on this aspect stating that 'the mere presence of a building such as this is likely to cause concern and disruption to local people…Moreover, though there are no windows that would face directly towards adjacent dwellings, the close distance between the dwelling and neighbouring gardens is such that, again, its presence would harmfully impact on the amenity of those living in and using the gardens of those dwellings. This is considered to comprise a level of harm (albeit somewhat on balance) sufficient to warrant the application's refusal in view of the policy provisions set out in part (g) of General Policy 2'. - 6.7 This element of the previous application is considered to remain unchanged. The existing use of the site is a vacant storage area which is believed to be domestic land and due to the ownership by the occupant of No.15 it appears to be associated with that dwelling; however the extent to which it falls within the curtilage of that dwelling is questionable and therefore the site would not benefit from permitted development rights. There are other sites along this back lane that have garages and parking areas; however none of these are two storey and the application site shares a boundary with No.13 Westminster Drive. The proposed two storey building would occupy the majority of the site within 1m of the boundary with No.13.
6.8 Refusal reason three states that 'The dwelling proposed would have insufficient outdoor amenity space and an inadequate outlook from its principle rooms'. The previous proposal includes small triangular areas that may be intended to be garden but the officer stated was not clear from the submitted drawing; these areas considered by the officer to be inadequate for the purposes of useable outdoor space. It was also noted that in terms of the outlook 'views are only achievable to the northwest (facing an access lane / the rear elevation of a dwelling) and southeast (Ballakermeen High School buildings) and, at first floor, to the southwest over other garages and storage land. None of this could be said to comply with the spirit of what paragraph 7.34.1 or the associated Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan are collectively trying to achieve and, consequently, the application is also concluded to represent inappropriate backland development contrary to this policy / paragraph combination'. - 6.9 The applicant has attempted to address the lack of external amenity space and outlook from the principle rooms by reducing the size of the building and changing the internal layout; however it remains that the property still has limited external amenity space, and the outlook from the principle rooms remains the same. The car parking spaces provided are immediately adjacent to the main window of the living room to the dwelling. The standards for car parking for terraced residential property, referred to in the Strategic Plan indicates that parking spaces should not be provided in front of the dwellings where this would result in a poor outlook for residents and would detract from the amenity of the area. The standard for detached residential property is that car parking within the curtilage of the property should be behind the front of the dwelling. It the current proposal both parking spaces are immediately in front of the front of the dwelling and is therefore likely to result in a poor outlook for the occupants. - 6.10 The final two reasons, numbers four and five, relate to the proposed hardstanding area for the parking of vehicles and stated that they do not meet the minimum length standard and therefore cannot be accepted as suitable parking provision, which is contrary to Transport Policy 7 / Appendix
7; and as the hardstanding area proposed does not meet the minimum length the vehicles associated with the dwelling will likely overhang the hardstanding area, encroaching onto the lane and preventing its proper use, contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2.
6.11 The drawing indicates two car parking spaces measuring 5.5 metres by 2.6 metres. The highways officer has looked at the proposal and stated that the two proposed spaces would each be
2.4m x 5.4m, despite the annotation; the drawing appears to have been improperly scaled before printing or distorted as a result and measurements are inaccurate, therefore the dimensions are taken in good faith. The MfMR specifies a driveway space should be at least 2.5m x 5.5m, which appears to be the case for the proposal; however, it also states that the space width should be increased to 3m when adjacent to a boundary, and 6m in length when at right angles adjacent to the carriageway.
6.12 With the larger requirements indicated above, the car parking spaces provided still appear to be undersized and therefore, insufficient parking space is proposed. The highways officer goes on to say the minimum aisle width for a car to turn in and out of a parking bay is an absolute minimum of
parking and space for manoeuvring vehicles is not sufficient and would therefore not meet the requirements of General Policy 2, Transport Policy 4 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
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:
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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 13.02.2019 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
