DPA’s decision-making ‘flawed’, but planning appeal is unsuccessful
AN APPEAL panel has ruled that the Development & Planning Authority’s decision-making was flawed and lacked evidence when it rejected a retrospective application for a driveway at Amherst.
But the planning tribunal also dismissed an appeal against the rejected application, saying a proposed driveway would make the road unsafe.
Mr and Mrs McKenzie had planning permission refused last year for partially retrospective work to create a parking area at their property, Victoriana.
The DPA said it would cause significant road safety and traffic management concerns, with restricted sight-lines, limited parking depth and no turning point, as well as it being close to a sharp bend on Amherst Road.
It cited two sections of the Island Development Plan – GP 8, which covers design, and IP9, which covers road safety.
But the tribunal stated that consultation between planners and highway engineers was ‘significantly flawed’ and there was a lack of evidence for planners’ statement that the proposal was of poor design.
‘The tribunal has found that the manner in which the DPA determined the planning application fell somewhat below the standard which we would normally expect,’ it said
‘In particular, we feel that the approach to carrying out the consultation with Traffic and Highways and to the application of policy lacked sufficient analysis and rigour.’
Despite this, the tribunal agreed that there were traffic concerns with the couple’s plan.
The appeal hearing heard that Amherst was a priority route with high traffic flow.
The applicants had argued that the road was hazardous and creating a driveway would be safer than allowing cars to stop to unload.
But the tribunal disagreed.
‘A car parked outside the property for loading or unloading or for the picking up and setting down of passengers – assumed to be from the nearside doors – would be less hazardous than a vehicle emerging from the access with inadequate visibility or the carrying out of a reversing manoeuvre into the site from such a heavily-trafficked road,’ it said.
The tribunal was concerned the parking area would allow only a very small car, as it had a depth of only 3.3m. It noted there were only three cars listed in the small car parking scheme which would even fit in such a small space – Toyota IQ, Smart Fortwo and Renault Twizy.
‘In view of the arguments put forward by the appellants based on the needs of their family, the tribunal considers that the parking area would be too small to accommodate a moderately-sized car suitable for a family.
‘Moreover, even if the appellants were to choose to use a very small car, this is not something which could reasonably be controlled by means of a planning condition attached to any permission granted.’
Based on these concerns, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.
