Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01298/C Applicant: Foxdale Properties Ltd Proposal: Operation of a temporary car park with controlled access (retrospective) Site Address: Vacant Land Woodbourne Lane Douglas Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 14.12.2016 Site Visit: 14.12.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 Situated within the Douglas (Selborne Drive) Conservation Area, the application site is a parcel of land that is almost rectangular in shape but for a chamfer at its eastern corner, and from which the sole highway access exists. The land is more or less surrounded by buildings, many of which are dwellings, but others of which are occupied by various commercial operations. The land is fully surrounded by access lanes, one of which (at its long, southeast boundary, and onto which the chamfered access faces), is Woodbourne Lane: an adopted highway. Woodbourne Lane appears to be between 3.8m and 4.0m wide along its full length, between its junctions at Selborne Drive to the west and Brunswick Road to the east. - 1.2 The longer sides of the application site face towards the northwest and southeast: bounding the lanes surrounding the site in these directions are the buildings of Tennis Road and Alexander Road respectively. To the southwest are the dwellings of Selborne Drive itself. All the dwellings on these roads back onto the application site, while there is a single commercial premises on the Tennis Road side that appears to face onto the western corner of the application site. To the northeast of the application site is a residential apartment block, which is set back from Tennis Road and is associated with another, similar apartment block that fronts Tennis Road, along with a smaller, apparently commercial premises. Between these two buildings is an open area that appears to be used for the storage of cars and motorcycles, all of which at the time of the site visit appeared to be in working order. It is not clear if this use is associated with the adjacent commercial premises. - 1.3 The site itself is fenced off for its entirety with the exception of the aforementioned chamfered corner, at which is situated a barrier. It is a low level, timber post-and-rail fence. The site is presently unused. Previously there stood an industrial building of some form here, but this has been demolished fairly recently.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the use of the land as a temporary car park with a controlled access. The agent has described the temporary nature of the car park as being "This

• could be 4 years +". Thirty parking spaces are shown. The agent has explained that the proposal reflects a means to allow redundant land to be used for parking until such time as the land becomes economically viable; they note that there appears to be a lack of parking in the area and so it is anticipated that users would be nearby residents and employees in the area. The barrier would be controlled by a permit system, and so the hours of operation would be unrestricted.
• 2.2 Although technically retrospective in nature, at the time of the first site visit and others since

• the land does not appear to be in this use any longer - at least not at the scale proposed under the submitted application. The application has been submitted following a complaint made to the Department, and the site remains without an active use at present. It is not clear on when the use ceased.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Neither the site nor the immediately surrounding area has been the subject of materially relevant planning applications. No application was submitted for the demolition of the warehouse, which apparently took place at some time during 2012, but the Department resolved to take no action in this respect. Consent would have been required for the demolition of this building owing to its location within a Conservation Area.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 As well as falling within the Douglas (Selborne Drive) Conservation Area, the site is zoned as being Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan. The associated Character Appraisal does not include any commentary of specific relevance to the proposal. Its main focus is on the arterial roads running through the Conservation Area, with a secondary focus on the quality of the various architectural styles and development eras spreading from these highways. The application site is not mentioned, perhaps reflecting the fact it cannot be seen from those adopted highways on which the Appraisal document is primarily focussed. It also avoids discussion of uses in the Area. - 4.2 It is considered that General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan should be applied; it states, in part:

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

4.3 Environment Policy 35 is relevant:

"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

4.4 Transport Policy 6 is also relevant:

"In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

4.5 Finally, Environment Policy 22 provides helpful guidance in respect of pollutants:

"Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure objected to the application on 16th December 2016. They commented in full as follows:

"The proposal is to use a vacant plot as a temporary car park taking access off Woodbourne Lane, an adopted service lane linking Selborne Drive and Brunswick Road. The lane is not of sufficient width to accommodate two way traffic flow and currently serves the rear access of several, predominantly residential, buildings. The lane is currently very lightly trafficked and is used by pedestrians.

"The proposed car park has 30 car parking spaces and is likely to result in a minimum of 60 additional vehicle movements each day, with a significantly higher number of movements if the spaces are used by residents as they are more likely to come and go throughout the day. There will also be an increase in pedestrian movements.

"Traffic movements associated with employment in the area are likely to conflict with movements by residents particularly during the morning peak hour; this increased conflict will increase the risk of incidents due to the width of the lane and may lead to vehicles having difficulty accessing the lane causing issues on Selborne Drive and Brunswick Road.

"The application has not demonstrated that the proposal will provide safe and convenient access or that there will not be an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows.

"Highway Services opposes the application on the grounds that it does not satisfy GP 2 (h) & (i)."

5.2 A letter of objection has been received from the named owner of the business operating from the commercial premises at the western corner of the site, raising some 22 separate points of concern. In summary, the concerns raised relate to the inaccurate / incomplete nature of the application form and associated Land Ownership Certificate; the failure to display yellow notices at the application site [Officer note: at the time of the three site visits undertaken, yellow notices were prominently displayed]; the unlikelihood that the land will ever become economically viable to develop as to do so would require access from abounding highways, which would require the purchase of residential properties thereon; giving approval will set a precedent for continual such applications, meaning it will never be developed for residential or commercial use; the site is not considered suitable for housing or commercial development due to the inadequacy of outlook and amenity and the narrow, restrictive nature of the access lane respectively; the current tarmac lane at the rear of Alexander Drive [Officer note: this is Woodbourne Lane] is not suitable for the additional weight of vehicle movements; the access and egress points are likely to be from Brunswick Road and the lane in this direction is only wide enough for a single vehicle, and there are restricted sight lines at the junction onto Brunswick Road; the angled access will be restricted by the existence of a parking area nearby; the lane is busy with Ballakermeen School children walking to and from school at the times the car park is likely to be busiest; the rear yard doors of all the properties backing onto the lane open directly onto the lane; drivers using this lane are doing so as a shortcut and therefore drive quickly; articulated lorries travel along the lane at slow speed to make deliveries to the rear of Wessex Garage; wheelie bins placed in the lane will impede access for additional users of the lane; residents accessing the rear of their properties by parking their cars will impede additional users of the lane; additional users of the lane will create a greater risk to

• pedestrians and users of rear yards using the narrow route; children play in the lane and additional users of the lane would increase the likelihood of injury or fatality; there is insufficient street-lighting present, and none are proposed within the application, to provide sufficient safety for users of the proposed car park and for pedestrians using the car park and lanes. These comments were datestamped as having been received 6th December 2016.
• 5.3 The owner / occupier of 'Cherry Trees', 10 Selborne Drive, which is situated north of the junction of Woodbourne Lane and Selborne Drive, objected to the application in comments dated 9th December 2016. In summary, the concerns raised relate to the fact that works had already been carried out without planning permission; any additional traffic use of this lane would require it to become one-way, which would directly affect the correspondent as her car parking area and garage are on this lane; Woodbourne Lane is already constantly used by heavy vehicles, which have caused damage including the knocking down of a pillar, reports of which have been made to the police; further traffic would increase congestion; the lane is extensively used by children on their way to school and care would be needed if further vehicular traffic were allowed; one of the buildings on Brunswick Road is already used as a garage, invariably resulting in congestion; the end of the lane that meets Selborne Drive is dangerous, especially during rush hours as Selborne Drive is an extremely busy commuter road; why should residents be asked to pay for parking, which the correspondent feels sure would not be used by residents.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Car parking as a use would normally be considered as being supplementary to any use found within a town. In this case, the car park proposed is larger than might normally be expected to be found within a largely (though by no means exclusively) residential area. The key issues for assessment are the proposal's impact on (i) highway safety, (ii) neighbouring living and working conditions, and (iii) the Douglas (Selborne Drive) Conservation Area. Highway safety - 6.2 As noted, both Highway Services and local residents / businesses have objected to the proposal on highway safety grounds. These concerns are entirely understandable. Visibility from Woodbourne Lane onto either Brunswick Road or Selborne Drive is, to some degree, constrained while Woodbourne Lane itself is too narrow to allow two cars to pass by one another safely and easily. It is reasonable to conclude that this would result in congestion at busier times, with the possible result of queueing onto the busier highways and also difficulties regarding the safe movement of pedestrian users of the lane at such times. - 6.3 It is logical to conclude that the majority of traffic accessing / leaving the site will do so via the northeastern part of Woodbourne Lane owing to the access being directed in that direction. The lane is certainly at its widest along this short stretch, but even at 5m is not wide enough to easily accommodate two-way traffic flow. The lane itself is fairly straight and so visibility along it to the proposed car park is just about possible from Brunswick Road and Selborne Drive, but considerate driving (i.e. drivers trying to access the site allowing those leaving to do so unencumbered by waiting on Selborne Drive and Brunswick Road) would result in queues on these two highways. - 6.4 The presence of congestion is not in itself necessarily objectionable if that congestion is likely to be on the smaller and more lightly trafficked lanes / highways. Congestion is something of a relative term, and the Island does not suffer greatly from this as an issue. However, this does of course mean that low-level changes to traffic flow will be more noticeable than if there was already a more significant traffic issue. While 30 cars might not seem a large number, should even a handful of these be attempting manoeuvres at the same time there is likely to be delays and congestion both on the comparatively little-used Woodbourne Lane but also, more problematically, on Brunswick Road and potentially Selborne Drive as well.

6.5 It is not ignored that additional car parking in the area would quite likely be beneficial to local residents. However, it is also noted that Highway Services have not made reference to any potential benefit in this respect. A number of site visits to the area over a number of years (when considering planning applications in the wider area) has not resulted in a noticeable and significant shortfall in parking provision. It is therefore considered that the positive effect in additional car parking provision would not necessarily offset the unsafe and inappropriate manner in which drivers would have to use to reach that provision. - 6.6 The use of the lanes by pedestrians, and in particular schoolchildren, is also a point of concern. It is reasonable to assume that vehicle speeds here are low, given the narrowness of the lane. However, this does not mean that the relationship between pedestrian and vehicular users of

the lane will be a comfortable one, with drivers' attention being drawn in different directions as they, perhaps, seek a parking space or attempt to access / leave Woodbourne Lane.

Impact on neighbouring living and working conditions

6.7 Related to the above is the impact any such change in traffic flow would have on neighbouring properties. It is to be remembered that all properties likely to be affected by the proposal are sited on highways, with Brunswick Road and Selborne Drive in particular being wellused. The additional movements of 30 vehicles beside these dwellings might not be considered to be a particularly significant alteration given that the site is within the Island's capital town. - 6.8 However, similarly, what might seem proportionally small changes can have significant impacts. The use of Woodbourne Lane will result in noticeably additional levels of traffic movements to the rear of dwellings that, at present, only experience vehicle movements to the front. There would be not just traffic flow but also vehicle manoeuvring as well, with the potential for engine noise at any time of the day. It is of course the case that this potential exists at present for these residents. It is also the case that the use of the warehouse previously on this site may have caused additional, and perhaps more problematic, impacts in noise, smells, vibration or general disturbance. However, that warehouse has been removed and so this cannot be a fallback position. Moreover, and as noted above, just because it is reasonable to expect noise at the front of their properties it does not follow that it is reasonable to expect similar noise to the rear, even if the traffic manoeuvring to the rear is unlikely to be so harmfully disturbing as that which already exists to the front. Impact on the Conservation Area - 6.9 The Character Appraisal does not provide any particularly helpful guidance in respect of the proposed use of the site, or of the uses in the area, but Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan is clear that only development that either preserves or enhances the character or appearance of a Conservation Area will be approved. The site can be discerned from both Brunswick Road and Selborne Drive, albeit only in glimpses from those highways. - 6.10 The site is unused, roughly finished with hardcore and surrounded by timber fencing. It could not be concluded to be attractive or offering a special or immutable character. The parking of cars on this land would clearly offer a change to the character of the site, but it would be a subjective argument to state that change would be a positive one. Some people think cars add vitality to a streetscene or area, while other people would consider a car park unsightly, detracting from the attractive built environment in the area. Other matters - 6.11 It is reasonable to consider to what other uses the land might be put, were the current application refused. One objector is of the view that the land will never become financially viable for either residential or commercial development, and also argues that Woodbourne Lane is unsuitable for such development in any case. If this objector's views are to be taken as read then it

• is not immediately clear what the land might actually be used for given that it is in private ownership. As such, its use as a car park seems like an appropriate response to the concern raised by the objector, even if that is clearly not the intention of the objection.
• 6.12 That an alternative possible use does not seem to be immediately forthcoming is, of course, not a reason to find the current proposal acceptable. It (potentially) being the 'least worst' use of the land does not automatically confer on the application a positive recommendation. Conclusions
• 6.13 This has been a difficult application to assess. While the highway safety aspects of the scheme are fairly clearly negative, it is also right to balance that against what else the site might satisfactorily be used for (if anything), while the impact on neighbouring living / working conditions and the Conservation Area also appear to be somewhat, but perhaps not overwhelmingly, harmful.
• 6.14 On this basis, there was a discussion between Officers in the Department and Highway Services with a view to potentially resolving or minimising the impact of the proposal on road safety, perhaps through the alteration of Woodbourne Lane to being one-way, or by reducing the number of parking spaces proposed. However, the very principle of the use of the land for a car park is the primary concern of Highway Services. They note that there is no way to control who might use the car park such that there could well be both people living and working nearby using them: this would result in a conflict between drivers leaving (residents) and arriving (commuters) at the same time and, with the lane being too narrow to allow two-way vehicle movement, this would be unacceptable. They also reinforced their concern with regards the conflict between additional road users and the schoolchildren that use the route.
• 6.15 On the face of it, the temporary use of land for a needed public amenity is to be welcomed. However, given the various concerns raised in correspondence and throughout this report, this simply seems to be the wrong location for the development proposed. While this is likely to leave the landowner in a difficult position as he tries to find an appropriate use for the site, the clear points against the proposal add up to indicate that a recommendation to approve it would fail to reflect sufficiently strongly on the relevant parts of Transport Policy 6, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 22 and Environment Policy 35. That there has been some local objection in reaching this conclusion is also noted: while only two private objections have been received, these are both lengthy and, for the most part, raise material planning considerations.
• 6.16 It is concluded that the proposal fails to provide for adequate amenity standards in itself, and fails to demonstrate it would not have an unacceptable effect on road safety, contrary to Transport Policy 6 and also parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2. It is also concluded that the proposal would be sufficiently and harmfully out of character with the local area and uses prevalent in that area to conclude it is contrary to parts (c) and (g) of General Policy 2, contrary to part (iii) of Environment Policy 22, and contrary to Environment Policy 35.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 Given the above, it is recommended that the application be refused on two separate grounds. If the Committee is minded to approve the application, consideration would need to be given to conditions restricting the time period for which the approval would enure and also restricting the use of the site. It is considered that the limited amount of work required to bring the site into use in the manner proposed would be such that a 12-month approval would not put the applicant to unreasonable expense for what might normally be considered an overly short period. It is also considered that conditions preventing the storage of anything other than domestic vehicles, and also preventing the repair of any vehicles, on the site would be appropriate. Some Members may recall attaching similar such conditions to the approval issued to PA 16/00283/B.

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:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

• 8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
• 8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The owner / occupier of 'Cherry Trees', 10 Selborne Drive, Douglas, which is a dwelling situated north of the junction of Woodbourne Lane and Selborne Drive and where it is reasonable to assume that additional vehicular traffic will pass by, and
• o Robert Graham of Robert Graham & Co, Chartered Quantity Surveyors, which is situated to the northwest of the application site.

While a strict reading of the Circular on the determination of Interested Person Status might make it difficult to give Interested Person Status to a representative of a business, the Circular does use the word 'generally', which gives some freedom in reaching conclusions on the matter. In this case, the

• objector raised a number of material planning considerations and, while there is a valid debate to be had about whether or not he, personally, or the operation of his business would be adversely affected by the proposal the subject of this application, it remains the officer conclusion that his interest is sufficient to warrant his being granted Interested Person Status in view of his premises' location opposite to the application site.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2017

• R 1. The application fails to demonstrate that it provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate manoeuvring space, and also fails to demonstrate that it will not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. As such, the application is contrary to Transport Policy 6 and parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 2. The application proposes a use at a scale that is sufficiently and harmfully out of character with the local area and uses prevalent in that area to conclude it is contrary to parts (c) and (g) of General Policy 2, and also to part (iii) of Environment Policy 22, and also to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…07.02.2017

Signed :………E RILEY………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.