Loading document...
Application No.: 24/91399/B Applicant: Mr Chris Ward Proposal: Proposed Parking Area on vacant overgrown landscaped area. Site Address: Land To The Rear Of Oakfield May Hill Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2HJ Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken: 13.02.2025 Site Visit: 13.02.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.03.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To provide adequate parking provision to the dwellinghouse. N 1. The applicant is reminded that a S109 Highway agreement will be required for the installation of a dropped kerb vehicular access onto the highway. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
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.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings and supporting information submitted on 9th January 2024, referenced;
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DoI - Highways Services - No objection
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: Field House, Laurys Avenue Woodruffe, 6 Laurys Avenue 5 Laurys Avenue
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site 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. - 1.2 The character of the area here are detached residential dwellings, namely bungalows, set back from the edge of the highway/footpath with lawned areas and parking adjacent to the respective dwellings. There are no parking restriction markings on the highway and parking is available on the highway. - 1.3 The end of the cul-de-sac serves the rear of Poyll Shellee, Claughbane Road, the front and vehicle access to Cooil Ny Feeyney, Field House and No.4 that all sit to the north and no's5
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the creation of a parking area on vacant land adjacent to the highway and to the rear of Oakfield. The area would broadly 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.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 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. - 3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy
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
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." - 3.5 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.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 97/01864/B - Erection of detached garage, Cooil-Ny-Feeyney, Laurys Avenue, Ramsey. REFUSED.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (this report only contain summaries - full reps can be read online) STATUTORY Con. - 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners commented (16/01/25) with; "I am directed by the Ramsey Town Commissioners to request that you defer any decision on the above application until such time as the Commissioners have had the opportunity to fully consider the plans. The Board meet on Wednesday 19th February, 2025, following which I will contact you again". No further comments have been received from Ramsey Town Commissioners at the time of writing.
5.2 Highways Services commented (21/01/25) with no objection. "Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the proposed hardstanding area is conditioned to be bound and consolidated throughout. The Applicant is advised to put a low wall/railings at back of the hardstanding area for the drop to the footpath to the property. A S109 highway agreement will be required for the dropped kerb footway to access the proposed hardstanding area by vehicles". - 5.3 DEFA Ecosystems commented (06/02/25) to object due to the removal of a landscaped area or urban green space and contrary to Strategic Policy 4b for the loss of habitats to birds, insects and other wildlife. NEIGHBOUR Reps. - 5.4 There have been a number of (three) objections, received from; Field House, Laurys Avenue Woodruffe, 6 Laurys Avenue - 5 Laurys Avenue who between them raise the following thematic issues;
6.0 ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.1 The site falls within the settlement boundary of Ramsey and an area zoned for residential development, and principally would be in general in accordance with SP2. There is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing residential properties (para 8.12.1) and provided such development would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area, as assessed below. As such the proposals would accord with Sp2.
6.2 The proposed creation of a parking space at the rear of the dwelling house would be clearly visible from the highway and would essentially be seen as either a hard standing area finished in tarmac or when being used, the parking for a single vehicle. This would not look out of place within the character of the residential area where properties here have parking within their respective curtilages. The installation of a dropped kerb will ensure compliance with highways and it is further noted they do not object to the proposals. The comments from ecology are noted on the loss of green space, however, the removal of shrubs and grassland does not require planning consent and there is no mechanism under planning to prevent this. Action under their (Ecology) own legislation could be pursued if required.
6.3 This aspect is deemed to be an acceptable form of development through the creation of a parking space to a residential dwelling, without harming the visual character and quality of the street scene or to the property itself in accordance with STP5, GP2(b,c) and Ep42. (ii) NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES - 6.4 In terms of the potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or overlooking), the level and scale of development proposed here to create a parking space, especially being contained to the rear elevation of the property and fronting onto Laurys Avenue are considered to be relatively modest and not judged to cause harm to the neighbouring amenity through any overlooking leading to a loss of privacy, or would have an overbearing impact that could also result in a loss of light, specifically those to within the cul-de-sac. - 6.5 The comments received from the neighbouring residents within the cul-de-sac are noted in para 5.4 and having visited the site to assess the matter, it was noted the existing hard standing area with loose bound stone material, not as the existing plans show a "overgrown unmaintained soft landscaped area". However, within the street scene it was noted the parking of vehicles on the highway and that there are no parking restrictions on the highway enabling parking on both sides of the road. - 6.6 The parking of one vehicle here, without blocking the pavement would not be seen to be out of character within the residential street scene where properties here have parking on their driveways or within the road way, and these proposals would not represent an incongruous feature. Whilst the concerns raised from the neighbours are noted, the parking of a vehicle off the road and not obstructing the pavement would not restrict or prevent any vehicle movements within the cul-de-sac or prevent any users of the footpath or access the any buried utilities (fire hydrant) within the pavement. - 6.7 Although restrictions, through planning conditions, would be needed to ensure no commercial vehicles are parked here and the space is only large enough for one vehicle, off the road and to be used in conjunction with the host property. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g). HIGHWAY SAFETY - 6.8 The proposed creation of a new driveway with a dropped kerb would be appropriate to accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the dwelling house. It is noted this would facilitate parking of one car off the highway and within the residential curtilage and takes into consideration visibility splays and highway safety for all users with clear visibility splays. - 6.9 In this instance it is noted Highway Services does not object. On balance, the support on this application from highways services and the level of information on drawings ensures the proposal would comply with GP 2 (h&I) and TP 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
7.1 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. - 7.2 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.
8.1 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
8.3 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. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
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 : Permitted Date : 21.03.2025 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown