Loading document...
Appeal Ref: AP25/0010 Proposal : Appeal against the appoval for proposed Parking Area on vacant overgrown landscaped area. Planning Ref: 24/91399/B Address : Land To The Rear Of Oakfield, May Hill, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 2HJ.
Mr Chris Ward, Oakfield, May Hill, Ramsey, IM8 2HJ. Statement Of Case Description Of Proposal
This proposed parking space is to the rear of a residential dwelling house called Oakfield, Mayhill Ramsey. The land in question to the rear/ west of the dwelling abuts the cul-de-sac of Laurys Avenue. The character of the area here is detached residential dwellings, namely bungalows, set back from the edge of the highway/footpath with lawned areas and parking adjacent to the respective dwellings. The approved proposal is the creation of a parking area on vacant land adjacent to the highway and to the rear of Oakfield. The area would accommodate one vehicle parked facing north to south to the highway and the area would be finished in a tarmac finish with a dropped kerb. The parking area would be for one vehicle with an Aco drain laid across the rear to a soakaway and soft landscaped area.
The creation of a parking area on this site would be an acceptable form of development within a defined residential area that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the host dwelling in terms of visual appearance nor would there be material harm to use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities or that of the highway. As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Environmental Policy 42 and Transport Policy 4&7.
In conclusion the Case Officer confirms that : The planning application would be an acceptable form of development within a defined residential area that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the host dwelling in terms of visual appearance nor would the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities be affected by the proposals. As such the proposals would comply with the aforementioned policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval. The Case Officer confirmed in his Approval that the proposals are therefore assessed as being aligned to the following Planning Policies : In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominantly residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan. The property isn't within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone. The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Spatial Policy 2 Ramsey is defined as a Service Centre General Policy 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
Transport Policy 7 Parking Provisions 3.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered
Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
The Residential Design Guidance provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property and on front gardens and driveway impacts.
The owner of the property Oakfield and also the adjoining land to the rear, wrote to the Planning Department in support of his application :
I am the owner of Oakfield and have been for nearly 2 years now and I purchased the house and land at the rear of the property. Over the last 2 years I have fully renovated and restored Oakfield from a partially dilapidated unhabitable dwelling into a visually appealing home for me and my family.
During the work I had used the land at the rear of the property for construction access and storage of materials due to the constraints of the single width private road at the front of the property. Following a compliant about construction materials on the pavement at the rear from a delivery from the local builder's merchant which was immediately moved when I was notified.
As the small parcel of land at the rear was overgrown and unmaintained and had no trees or large shrubs on it, I decided to use it to create a storage area during the renovation. After living in the property it became apparent that there was an issue with parking in the area due to all the terraced Victorian properties on Mayhill mostly with 6 bedrooms, with only access to street parking, making the main road more dangerous and congested, with heavy traffic having to squeeze past ease other from and up to the main Mountain Road.
Oakfield our property has always had gated access at the rear through the original wall built in 1904 and a linking footpath to our gate way, long before the bungalows on the Laurys Avenue were built, and the boundary of our land runs up to the back of the public highway footpath, no different to any of the adjacent bungalows, so we have do a right to drive and use the road for access and parking. The turning head also has two driveways off it at the other point of the turning head.
The land has a public main sewer running under and has an easement should the Local Government Drainage Department require access. This piece of our land cannot also be used to construct a building or garage, because of the easement. It also means that at no point can any deep rooting trees be planted, with only low-level shallow rooting shrubs which birds will not nest in.
There are numerous examples down Laurys Avenue where properties have resurfaced their landscaped gardens with tarmac or paving, which no Planning Approval is required. We have in fact retained the existing landscaping to both of the sides of this area.
We have not done anything contrary to Planning Policy as we are not in a Conservation Area, and when we consulted the Highways Department to discuss the possibility and practicalities of using the land as a permanent parking space, we were surprised that it required a Full Planning Application. Following this meeting on site we submitted a Planning Application on the 16th December 2024 and unfortunately due to staff shortages and illness over the Christmas holiday period it was not validated until the 13th January 2025 nearly a month later.
I have included some photos to show that the turning head, which is legally required to be clear at all times, is used by vehicles every day of the week and also for parking overnight, making the turning head unusable for any vehicle to turn, especially large emergency service vehicles. The turning head has a fire hydrant, which is another reason these vans are parked illegally.
Creating the single parking space for Oakfield is only making the traffic and local parking situation better, not worse and it is also the preference of the Planning Department to provide off road parking when possible and practical. We would like to believe that you will support this application.
The nature of the objection submitted to the Planning Approval, does not reference any policy being contrary to any IOM Government Planning Policy, and is heavily weighted on the loss of the cul-de-sac to provide additional parking for adjacent property owners.
It is also pertinent to note that the main email objection was submitted on the 22nd April 8 days after the Appeal ‘period’ had been closed and 11 days after the original appeal request was submitted on the 11th April.
The site notice was displayed from the 20th January until the application was approved in full public view. Confirmation that it could be easily be read by members of the public from the public highway, as residents sent objections in to the Planning Department starting on the 3rd February up until the 26th February. Record photographs were taken by the applicant.
For clarity the applicant never had a discussion with any neighbour claiming to "know how to deal with the planning office". It was following a meeting on site with the Highways Department to discuss the possibility and practicalities of using the land as a permanent parking space, we were surprised that it required a Full Planning Application to the Planning Department and not just a S109 agreement with the Highways Department.
We agree with the Planning Departments original decision to approve the application and would ask that consideration be given to confirming the Approval of this project at Appeal.
I Gareth M Roberts will be attending the hearing and would like to bring Mr Chris Ward to answer any questions raised at the hearing.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
