Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00727/B Applicant: Mr Alan Cregeen Proposal: Alterations and widening of existing driveway and vehicular access Site Address: 1 Gellings Avenue Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5BG Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 18.07.2016 Site Visit: 18.07.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 1 Gellings Avenue, which is a two-and-ahalf-storey dwelling located at the northern end of a short terrace of identically designed houses. The dwellings step up from one another in line with the steepness of the highway. - 1.2 Like the other two dwellings in the terrace, it benefits from both an integral garage as well as a short but useable parking space in front. Each of the three dwellings also has a small area given over to either grass or shrubs alongside the parking space, and which sits in front of a small, externally accessed store that sits forward of the building line and also front doors. Each dwelling's front space is separated by a wall that steps down and appears to be 0.8m at its highest; such walls also 'bookend' the terrace and separate it from the garaging and vacant space to the northeast and southwest respectively. - 1.3 The street is subject to Disc Zone parking control.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the removal of the front store, but retention of the porch canopy above, and also to convert the grassed frontage area to provide an additional parking space. - 2.2 The newly exposed wall would be rendered and painted to match the existing dwelling. - 2.3 The new parking space, following the removal of the store as proposed, would measure just less than 5.0m deep; this, however, presumes that a car can park between the step up to the front door and the side wall discussed above. The distance between that wall and the step is 2.5m, which is much narrower than would normally be expected for a parking space; the step itself projects 0.4m from the front of the property, leaving a parking space of roughly 4.6m in depth. The overall parking space that would be provided would be rectangular in shape and measure 6.4m in width.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The dwellings were, following an appeal, approved under PA 98/01877/B. No conditions relating to the use of the land in front of the dwellings were attached. - 3.2 The land to the southwest has been the subject of a pair of applications recently: one, PA 16/00281/B, is adjacent to 1 Gellings Avenue and sought and gained planning approval for two semi-detached dwellings. Adjacent this, further to the southwest, PA 16/00681/B is currently seeking approval for a single dwelling; a decision on this application remains outstanding pending clarification of parking standards.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area of Residential use on the Area Plan for the South. As such, the proposal falls to be assessed against the following criteria of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan:
"The development proposal comprises the removal of an existing store to create an additional in curtilage standing car parking space adjacent to the existing standing car parking space and garage. The additional space is proposed on what is currently a small grassed garden area at the front of the property.
"The supporting plans indicate a distance to the back of the existing footway on Gellings Avenue of just over 5m. Although a distance of 5.5m to 6m would provide more comfort in relation to a parked car potentially protruding onto the footway, it is consistent with the existing standing space and standing spaces at the neighbouring properties.
"Having reviewed the supporting information, the Department of Infrastructure does not oppose this planning application."
5.2 Port St. Mary Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 14.07.2016. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The application raises a fairly common tension between the need (or, rather, the benefit) of providing additional off-street parking against the impact such provision will have on the character and appearance of the streetscene. It is noted that this is one of three dwellings where such a proposal could be forthcoming in future; two other dwellings of similar positioning also have planning approval while a further sixth could, at some point, also gain approval. The grant of approval to this application could make it difficult to resist future such applications with the potential result that there could be some 12 cars parked in parallel in front of the dwellings along here.
6.2 In the first place, Highway Services advise that the space is not what would normally be sought but nevertheless is acceptable. There does not seem to be any particular reason to take an alternative approach in this case. It appears, from comments made in respect of applications for new dwellings adjacent the site, that local people believe on-street parking is approaching somewhere near capacity. Accordingly, off-street parking is to be supported where it does not have a harmful impact on the streetscene.
6.3 There can be little doubt that the provision of an additional space, even one below the expected size standard such as proposed, will relieve some of the parking pressure identified in correspondence elsewhere on separate, but adjacent, planning applications. - 6.4 The very real potential for the other dwellings nearby having similar parking arrangements should not be ignored if this application were to be approved. However, it is noted that the amount of garden land sitting to the front of the dwellings here is such that additional parking in this manner might not be wholly objectionable. There are already walls in place that help break up the starkness of the built form, while the majority of the public space in front of the dwellings is given over to hardstanding in any case. - 6.5 Each application should be judged having regard to its own unique circumstances, and nor should any assessment pre-judge or prejudice the outcome of other similar proposals. It is not considered that the grant of planning approval in this case would lead to a situation where the Department would be hamstrung in respect of any such future, similar, hypothetical proposals. In any case, to refuse an application purely because of its potential for setting a precedent could well be considered unlawful. - 6.6 In this case, while the proposal is not ideal in terms of either parking provision (the space is too small) or impact on the streetscene (the loss of the small amount of garden space and its replacement with yet more hardstanding is hardly the perfect balance between the natural and built environment), on neither issue is the proposal considered so harmful to the character of the site or area in which it sits to warrant the application's refusal.
7.1 In view of the conclusions reached above, it is considered that the application is not at significant odds with the provisions of parts (b), (c), (g), (h) or (i) of General Policy 2 to a degree sufficient to warrant its refusal. Accordingly, a recommendation of approval is made. A condition requiring the land be kept free for the parking of vehicles at all times would be appropriate. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.10.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: In the interest of providing sufficient parking for the application site and for the benefit of the surrounding area.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 01 and 02, both date-stamped as having been received 28th June 2016.
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: 11.10.2016 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown