Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90312/B Applicant: Ms Diane Jane Stewart Proposal: Creation of off-street parking space Site Address: 14 Ashberry Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1PX Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.08.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed parking space is inadequate to accommodate car parking and pedestrian access at the same time, leading to an increasing possibility that a parked car may overhang onto the pavement, impairing pedestrian access to the road contrary to General Policy 2 & Transport Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan and Manual for Manx Roads. - R 2. The proposal would harm the character of the area, namely, terraced houses with front gardens and parking spaces behind the houses. The proposal is considered to be failing to comply with General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: 11 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas - 15 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas - 16 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas 18 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas 20 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is 14 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas, a semi-detached house located on the northeast of Ashberry Avenue.

1.2 Ashberry Avenue has a rising level from the south to the north and ends with a Tshaped turnaround on the north. It has three distinctive characters:

• o The lower half of the road is front-gabled detached houses with a driveway leading to a garage at the rear of the site.
• o The middle section has a section of side-gabled quasi-semi-detached (or terraced) houses sitting close to the highway with a long rear garden. There are two communal car parks with a driveway leading from the road to the rear of the houses.
• o The rest are side-gabled detached houses set back from the road (including the Tshaped turnaround) with a long front garden and a short rear garden.

1.3 14 Ashberry Avenue is a side-gabled quasi-semi-detached house located northwest of a front-gabled detached house. The existing front garden is approx.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is the creation of an off-road parking space. The space is approx. 2.2m wide and 4.9m long.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no previous applications 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 Area Plan for the East.

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 General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g), (h), (i) PPS and NPD - 4.3 No Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive is applicable 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 particularly of material relevance to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 6.3 Front Gardens and Driveways

5.2 Manual for Manx Roads provides best practices and technical details of how to ensure highways are accessible, safe, inclusive and serviceable. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Douglas City Council does not object to this application (10.04.2025).

6.2 DoI Highway Services oppose this application (02.04.2025). The comment states that the proposal would not comply with the Manual for Manx Roads (MfMR) for a parking space with pedestrian access. The comment also suggests that the parking space should be moved to the other side of the front garden to meet the MfMR.

6.3 DoI Highway Drainage writes in (06.05.2025) to inform the applicant that no surface water should be discharged onto a public highway.

6.4 Four neighbouring properties were notified. Five public comments have been received (04.03.2025-28.05.2025) from the owners/occupiers of the following address:

• o 11 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas
• o 15 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas
• o 16 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas
• o 18 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas
• o 20 Ashberry Avenue, Douglas

6.5 The material planning considerations raised by the comments are:

• o public parking space availability
• o character of the area
• o surface water treatment

6.6 The non-material planning considerations raised by the comments are:

• o view
• o setting precedent

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The main considerations for this application are the principle of the development, its impact on the character and street scene of the area and the highway. Principle of the Development

7.2 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 that after development, the sum of the number of off-street parking spaces created and the number of on-street parking spaces remaining should be greater than the number of existing parking spaces available on the street.

7.3 The road is available for parking. The road length available for on-street parking in front of the existing lawn is approx. 4.9m. The proposal reduces the road length available for onstreet parking to 2.6m. Since both the existing length and the remaining length are significantly lower than the recommended 6m length within the Manual for Manx Roads, the proposal is not considered to lead to a reduction of parking spaces. - 7.4 The proposal will create one additional parking space. The proposed parking space does not satisfy the recommendation in the Manual for Manx Roads. Therefore, it is considered that there is no increase in the total number of parking spaces available within the area. It is also worth noticing that the proposed parking space is only available to the applicant. - 7.5 The next test is whether over 50% of the existing front lawn/landscaped garden will be lost. After the proposal, the lawn still counts for 50% of the existing front garden. However, the remaining 50% is at the cost of scarifying a pedestrian footpath. Therefore, the proposal is considered to fail the principle test. Visual Amenities - 7.6 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".

7.8 The most important consideration for such a proposal is whether it will shift the boundary of the public realm. If so, is such a shift acceptable? For this application, this transition is clear: road - garden/driveway - dwelling. While the remaining garden length is

• reduced, the remaining width still provides sufficient separation between public and private spaces.
• 7.9 In the meantime, the proposal is within a section on the road where parking has been provided at the rear of the houses, rather than having no off-road parking at all. The lack of front parking space is by design, meaning it is considered an integral part of the road's character. If approved, this proposal would disrupt the consistent appearance of this section of the road and make it harder to maintain the existing character. Highway
• 7.10 Highway Services has objected due to the proposed space not meeting the required dimension standard in the Manual for Manx Roads, which in itself wouldn't necessarily be considered sufficient reason for recommending refusal. However, it is noted that if the proposal were to comply with this standard, the remaining garden space would be less than 50% of that of the existing one. Planning Balance Assessment
• 7.11 The proposal would not increase the overall parking spaces available around the area, and it would detract from the existing character of the area. In the meantime, there is no public benefit that can outweigh the planning harm listed above. Therefore, the application is recommended for a refusal.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal would harm the character of the area, namely, terraced houses with front gardens and parking spaces behind the houses. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be failing to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and is recommended for a refusal. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

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, and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 12.08.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.