Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90295/B Applicant: Mrs Dawn Collins Proposal: Remove part of grass bank to create new driveway and dropped kerb. Site Address: 34 King Edward Park Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AB Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 21.03.2025 Site Visit: 21.03.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposals fail to provide the required visibility splays and therefore it is considered the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on road safety on the local highway. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: Department of Infrastructure -Highway Services (Highway Services Drainage while not objecting are part of the DOI) - Objection Local Authority - Objection given Highway Services have objected, it is therefore reasonable to consider Onchan Commissioners would also object as their approval was subject to Highway Services approval.
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 34 King Edward Park, Onchan which is a single storey bungalow located to the north of King Edward Park and south of Harbour Road. The MER railway lines runs to the northeast of the site.
1.2 The property has an existing front driveway/access and landscaped gardens which front onto King Edward Park.
2.0 PLANNING POLICIES - 2.1 The application site is within an area of 'Predominantly Residential' under the Area Plan for the East 2020. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 2.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:- - 2.3 General Policy 2 states: "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:
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
4.0 PROPOSAL - 4.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of part of grass bank to create new driveway and dropped kerb all to the east elevation (rear). The new access would have direct access/egress to and from Harbour Road. - 4.2 The access onto Harbour Road would have a width of 4.3m and the driveway a width narrowing to 3.5m with a depth of 7.3m. There is no turning provision associated with the proposal.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services have objected to the application making the following comments (26.03.2025):
"Highway Services HDC have reviewed the planning application 25/90295/B details and can comment as follows:
5.2 Onchan Commissioners do not object, subject to Highway Services recommendations (02.04.2025).
5.3 Highways Services Drainage (DOI) comment (24.04.2025): "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
Recommendation: The applicant should be aware of the clause above. As there are no levels or drainage details the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the clause."
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are firstly the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene and secondly the potential impact upon highway safety. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE - 6.2 The proposed works would result in a section of existing grass banking being removed and replaced with the new access/driveway. This section of the street scene would be altered; however, one of the main characteristic of Harbour Road are properties with driveway/accesses. While this proposal would affectedly be to the rear of the existing dwelling, it is considered most people travelling along this section of Harbour Road would just consider the access as part of the main dwelling, which as mentioned is a common feature in this area. An exception to this is Nr 36 King Edward Park immediately to the north of the site which has an "in and out" arrangement from King Edward Park to Harbour Road. However, the general character of the street scene includes access/driveways. Accordingly, while the loss of a small section of the Manx sod bank is unfortunate; overall, the proposal from a visual amenity perspective raise no concerns and complies with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and the Residential Design Guide. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY
6.3 As outlined by Highway Services comments there are two areas of concern, first the visibility splays of the proposed access and second the principle of a second access. - 6.4 In terms of the latter the Department has no concerns. There is no planning policy to support a refusal of a second access to a property and the Department has on many occasions approved a second access to a property, subject to other material planning considerations been acceptable. Accordingly, it is not considered this is a sufficient reason to refuse the application. - 6.5 The matter of the visibility splays is a significant concern. The proposed access would be on a section of a sloping section of Harbour Road and northwest (approximately 30m) of the junction of Harbour Road and King Edward Road, which includes the MER railway lines running across the Harbour Road. - 6.6 Immediately to the north of the site is the neighbouring property Nr 36 King Edward Park, which also has an access onto Harbour Road and King Edward Park. This "in and out" arrangement has been in places potentially since the original dwelling on the neighbouring site was built a number of decades ago (existing dwelling Nr 36 is a replacing dwelling approved in 2010 and 2013 which showed this existing access arrangement in place). - 6.7 Highway Services have outlined that visibility splays of 2.4m (or with a 2m setback being an absolute minimum) x 43m are required in either direction. The amended plans show visibility splays of 2.4m x 7.5m in a north westerly direction and 2.4m x 11.5m in a south westerly direction; neither of which meet the requirement outlined. The plan does also indicated visibility splay of 2m x 31m in a north westerly direction albeit this is not shown to the nearest kerb line, in fact it is closer to the opposite kerb line on the opposite side of Harbour Road. Further a splay is also shown of being 2m x 30.3m in a south easterly direction. - 6.8 Visiting the area and from general observations of driving along this section of Harbour Road over many years, it is a well-used section of road which serves the neighbouring residential areas and Onchan village centre. Accordingly, given these reasons and also its general characteristics outlined in paragraph 6.6, it is considered important to ensure highway safety matters have the highest regard. The visibility being set back either 2.4m or 2m falls well below standard. The north westerly splay is restricted by the neighbouring pillar which does not appear to be within the applicant's control. To the south easterly direction the existing Manx sod hedge restricts the splay. The loss of large sections of this bank would potentially raise cause concern of the visual impact upon the street scene; however, that has not been proposed in this submission. However, to achieve the splay of 43m to the nearest kerb line, it is likely this splay would run over the neighbouring properties garden (Nr 32 King Edward Park), so again outside the applicants control and unachievable. Even with the removal or reduction of the majority of the Manx sod bank the required splay would not be achievable. - 6.9 It is noted the existing property has at least two off road parking spaces to its front driveway and also has an attached single garage. - 6.10 Overall, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on road safety on the local highway.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 Overall, while the principle and the visual impact of the works are considered acceptable; given the proposal would not provide the required visibly splays for its location, it is concluded that the planning application would be contrary with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and as such the planning application is recommended for a refusal.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 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 (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). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
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):
8.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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: 20.05.2025 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
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