Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90515/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Robert Syme Proposal: Extension to hardstanding to the front of the property and removal of existing dwarf wall to provide vehicular access to additional parking Site Address: Shambles 10 Spinney Close Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1NF Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 25.06.2025 Site Visit: 25.06.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.08.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed development would result in the near-total loss of soft landscaping and the introduction of extensive hardstanding across the site frontage, leading to an unacceptable visual impact that is out of character with the landscaped streetscape of Spinney Close. The proposal fails to incorporate sustainable drainage measures or meaningful ecological enhancements, resulting in a diminished contribution to biodiversity and green infrastructure. Additionally, the loss of front garden amenity would significantly reduce the quality of the living environment for the occupants. The development does not comply with General Policy GP2 (d, f, g, h, l), Strategic Policies 4 and 5, Environment Policy EP42, or the design principles set out in the Residential Design Guide (RDG 2021) and is therefore refused.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highways - No Objection _________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 'Shambles', 10 Spinney Close, Douglas, Douglas, a two-storey detached dwelling located on the southeastern end of the cul-de-sac the forms

• Spinney Close. The property includes an integral double garage and benefits from a private driveway that provides additional off-street parking provision for two cars.
• 1.2 The frontage of the property is enclosed by low brick walls and bordered by hedges and shrubs. A public footpath adjoins the site boundary and runs alongside part of the area where the proposed parking extension would be located.
• 1.3 The immediate locality is residential in character, comprising a mix of single and twostorey detached dwellings. Most properties provide off-street parking for two vehicles on hardstanding areas. These parking areas are generally well-contained, with clear separation between parking and front garden spaces. As a result, parking provision is not a dominant feature of the front garden areas, and boundary treatments such as hedges and low walls contribute to a well-defined and landscaped streetscape.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Extension to hardstanding to the front of the property and removal of existing dwarf wall to provide vehicular access to additional parking. - 2.2 The proposed works would result in the physical expansion of the existing driveway area by approximately 40m², extending into the front garden space to accommodate additional off-street parking. This would result in most of the site frontage being occupied by hardstanding, with only a small strip to the west retained as garden area. - 2.3 The proposal also includes the removal of low boundary walls to the east of the access, measuring approximately 3.5m in length, to facilitate the expanded parking layout. A linear drainage system is proposed, with surface water channelled to an existing manhole to manage runoff from the extended hardstanding. - 2.4 No trees are proposed to be removed, although a round planter bed and existing plantings are to be removed to facilitate the development.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific

• 3.1.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks, or within a Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

• 3.3.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application:

• 1. Paragraph 8.12.1 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".
• 2. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• 3. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
• 4. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
• 5. Transport Policy 4 - Ensuring highway safety.
• 6. Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians.
• 7. Transport Policy 7 - Parking provisions, including Appendix A.7.6 standards.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Residential Design Guidance 2021

• 4.1.1 This document 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 properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 6.3 provides guidance on Front Gardens and Driveways.
• 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of three previous planning applications, none of which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highway Services states that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. Conditions on vehicular access, parking and bound/consolidated hardstanding implemented before first occupation should be attached to permission (23 June 2025).

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage advises that allowing surface water runoff onto the public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise that the applicant must ensure compliance with this requirement, and that the proposed drainage channel may need to be extended across the existing hardstanding to achieve this (24 July 2025). - 6.3 Douglas City Council have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 16 June 2025. - 6.4 No comment has been received from neighbouring properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• 1. The Visual impact of the proposed development on the character of the site and immediate street scene (GP2, STP 5, EP 42 and RDG 2021); and
• 2. Impact on parking and highway safety (GP2, TP 4, TP 6 and TP7);
• 3. Amenity Impacts - Occupants and Neighbours (GP2 (g, h), RDG 2021 Section 6.3); and
• 4. Environmental and Ecological Impacts (STP 4, GP 2, & RDG 2021)

7.2 Visual Impact and Design Quality

• 7.2.1 In assessing the visual impact of the proposal, it is considered that the proposal would result in the removal of soft landscaping and the extension of hardstanding across more than 50% of the site frontage. This is contrary to RDG 6.3.9, which advises against such dominance of hard surfacing in front garden areas to preserve the landscaped character of residential streetscapes.
• 7.2.2 The resulting appearance would resemble a commercial or industrial frontage, which is considered to be at odds with the prevailing residential character of Spinney Close. As described in Section 1.0 of this report, the street is defined by landscaped front gardens, low boundary walls/fences, and a clear separation between parking and garden spaces. The proposal would disrupt this rhythm and introduce a visually intrusive element into the streetscape.
• 7.2.3 The proposal does not incorporate meaningful mitigation measures such as permeable surfacing, planting strips, or sympathetic boundary treatments. While RDG 6.3.10 encourages the integration of soft landscaping to soften the appearance of driveways, the submitted plans do not demonstrate a comprehensive design response that respects the site context. As such, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Strategic Policy 5, which seeks to ensure new development makes a positive contribution to the built environment, and Environment Policy 42, which requires development to respect the character and identity of the locality.

• 7.2.4 The applicant may argue that the retention of a narrow garden strip of planting bed to the west of the parking area and hedge adjacent to the footpath would mitigate the visual impact of the proposed hardstanding. While these features are noted, their scale and positioning offer limited visual relief. The hedge runs along the side boundary and the planting strip is confined to a small corner of the frontage, neither of which materially offset the overall loss of green space or the dominance of parked vehicles.
• 7.2.5 Given the above, it is considered that the proposal would result in a frontage that is visually harsh and inconsistent with the landscaped character of Spinney Close, where soft boundary treatments and garden spaces contribute to a coherent and attractive streetscape. The retained elements do not form part of a cohesive landscaping scheme and would be visually overwhelmed by the extent of hardstanding proposed. Therefore, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable visual impact, and is not in accordance with GP2, STP

• 5, EP42, or the principles set out in RDG 2021.

7.3 Parking and Highway Safety

• 7.3.1 With regard to parking and highway safety impacts, the proposal would increase offstreet parking provision, which is consistent with the standards set out in Transport Policy 7 and Appendix A.7.6 of the Strategic Plan. The existing driveway would be expanded to accommodate additional vehicles, and the layout would not result in the loss of on-street parking due to the cul-de-sac configuration.
• 7.3.2 The removal of the low boundary wall to facilitate access is not considered to compromise pedestrian safety. The submitted site plan and evidence during site visit confirm that the public footpath would remain unobstructed, and the proposed access width is sufficient to allow safe vehicle movements. These elements are considered to comply with RDG

• 6.3.13 and Transport Policy 6, which require equal consideration for pedestrian and vehicular safety.
• 7.3.3 The proposed linear drainage system is intended to manage surface water runoff from the extended hardstanding. However, DOI Highways Drainage have advised that the system may need to be extended to prevent discharge onto the public highway, in accordance with RDG 6.3.11 and Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986. This can be secured via condition should approval be granted.

• 7.3.4 Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of parking and highway safety, subject to conditions securing appropriate access and drainage measures.

7.4 Amenity Impacts

• 7.4.1 The proposed development would result in the near-total loss of the front garden, replacing it with approximately 40m² of hardstanding. As outlined in RDG 6.3.1-6.3.3, front gardens contribute significantly to residential amenity by enhancing privacy, buffering noise and air pollution, providing safe play space, and supporting health and wellbeing through sensory and aesthetic value. The removal of these features would diminish the amenity of the occupants.

• 7.4.2 The transformation of the frontage into a predominantly hard-surfaced parking area would have limited impacts on neighbours. In this case, the nearest neighbouring properties are single-storey dwellings with mature hedging and vegetation forming part of the boundary treatment. These features provide a degree of visual separation and screening, which helps to mitigate the impact of the proposed hardstanding on neighbouring outlook and privacy.
• 7.4.3 Given the orientation of the dwellings and the presence of established boundary treatments, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant harm to

• neighbouring residential amenity in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts, or loss of privacy.
• 7.4.4 While the impact on neighbouring properties is limited, the proposal would result in a notable loss of front garden amenity for the occupants. When assessed collectively, the overall impact on residential amenity, particularly for the occupants of the existing dwelling, is considered unacceptable. The proposal does not comply with GP2 (g, h) or the principles set out in RDG 2021.
• 7.5 Environmental and Ecological Impacts

• 7.5.1 The proposed development would result in the removal of soft landscaping and permeable surfaces across the majority of the site frontage. As outlined in RDG 6.3.3, front gardens contribute to local biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and climate change adaptation, including natural flood risk mitigation. The loss of these features reduces the site's ecological function and its contribution to the wider urban green network.
• 7.5.2 The proposal does not incorporate permeable surfacing or sustainable drainage features, contrary to the recommendations of RDG 6.3.11, which states that "proposals are unlikely to be supported unless they adopt one or more of the following approaches" to manage surface water runoff. The absence of such measures increases the risk of localised flooding and environmental disturbance, particularly given the cumulative impact of impermeable surfaces in residential areas.
• 7.5.3 Although no trees are proposed for removal (as there are no trees here), the proposal results in the loss of the round planter bed and associated vegetation. The remaining green elements include a small planter to the west of the parking area, some flowering plants, and a hedge along the eastern boundary. While these features do offer a modest degree of species diversity, their limited scale means their ecological contribution is minimal. The retained vegetation does not provide meaningful habitat value or support significant biodiversity. As such, the site's overall contribution to green infrastructure is diminished. While some landscape features are retained, the proposal does not demonstrate best practice in reducing environmental harm as required by GP2(d, l) and Strategic Policy 4(c), and only partially aligns with GP2(f), which encourages the retention of existing landscape features.
• 7.5.4 Based on the foregoing, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable environmental impact, due to the loss of green infrastructure and the absence of sustainable drainage measures. It does not comply with GP2, STP 4, or the principles set out in RDG 2021 Sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.11.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal would improve off-street parking provision and maintain pedestrian safety, aligning with transport policies and guidance. However, these benefits are outweighed by the adverse impacts on visual character, residential amenity, and environmental quality. The loss of soft landscaping and permeable surfaces would diminish the site's contribution to biodiversity and green infrastructure, while the design fails to respect the established streetscape or incorporate meaningful mitigation. Overall, the proposal does not comply with key provisions of GP2, Strategic Policies 4 and 5, Environment Policy 42, or RDG 2021, and is therefore not supported. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 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).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 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. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

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: 05.08.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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.