Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90776/B Applicant: Mr Nigel Crennell Proposal: Enlargement of vehicular hardstanding and widening of access Site Address: 43 Scarlett Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1NX Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Due to the loss of front garden the proposal as submitted would unacceptably disrupt the rhythm of the character of the street scene and harm the residential amenity of existing and future occupants, as such the proposal is judged contrary to section 6.3 of the Residential Design Guide (2021). - R 2. Due to the lack of retained soft landscaped garden area the proposal as submitted would unacceptably disrupt the rhythm of the character of the street scene and harm the residential amenity of existing and future occupants, as such the proposal is judged contrary to section

6.3 of the Residential Design Guide (2021). _________________________________________________________________

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• o Highways Services - no objection
• o Highways Drainage - no objection and the applicant has incorporated drainage measures to protect the public highway from additional surface water.
• o Local Authority - no objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of no.43 Scarlett Road, a bungalow in Castletown. The property is separated from the road by private off-road parking and a low wall behind which is a garden. - 1.2 Frontages for dwellings in this location are similarly separated. The level of vegetation between the properties and the road varies.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This planning application proposes increasing the off-road parking width by removing the low wall and laying hardcore in the form of granite resin. - 2.2 In support of the proposals the applicant has submitted plans and details of the proposed finished material.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There is no relevant previous planning history for this site. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 Site Specific

• 4.1.1 The site lies within an area zoned as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Area Plan for the South; Proposals Map 5, Castletown.
• 4.1.2 The site is not constrained by a flood zone but surface water flooding is recorded within the street.
• 4.1.3 The site is not constrained by a Conservation Area, Registered Building or Registered Tree(s).

4.2 Strategic Policy

• 4.2.1 Given the above observations the following Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 Policies are considered relevant.
• 4.2.2 General Policy 2 outlines the general standards for acceptable development that include respecting the site and its surroundings, ensuring that the proposal does not adversely affect the character of the area or cause harm to neighbouring amenity. In addition there should be no adverse impact on road safety. GP2(b) (c) (g) (h) and (i).

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (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;

- 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Residential Design Guide (July 2021) Section 6.3 'Front gardens and Driveways'; Front gardens are important in their role in the aesthetic character of a street and natural wildlife habitat. Careful consideration in design can minimize the impact. The cumulative impact of the loss of several gardens to vehicle parking can become harmful to the visual as well as wildlife when all habitat is removed.

5.2 s58 of the Highways Act and Manual for Manx Roads to ensure additional surface water does not discharge onto the highway - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Local Authority

• 6.1.1 Castletown Commissioners were consulted but at the time of writing this report no comment has been received (16.09.2025).

6.2 Statutory Consultees

• 6.2.1 DOT Highways Services have no objection; no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. A S109 highway agreement will be required for the dropped kerb vehicular access (16.08.2025).
• 6.2.2 DOT Highways Drainage have no objection but request that the applicant demonstrates compliance with s58 of the Highways Act and s11.3.11 of Manual for Manx Roads to ensure additional surface water does not discharge onto the highway (22.08.2025).
• 6.2.3 Manx Utilities were consulted but at the time of writing this report no comment has been received (16.09.2025)

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The proposal is residential in nature and the site is within an area of residential development therefore the principal of the proposal is acceptable. The key issues in assessment of this planning application are;

• (7.2) Impact on the character of the street scene.
• (7.3) Highway impact and drainage
• (7.4) Impact on neighbours.

7.2 Impact on the character of the street scene

• 7.2.1 Loss of the lawn area will impact negatively upon the visual character of the dwellinghouse at the site and within the streetscene. Although the amended proposal submitted on the 17th of October retained the existing flower bed, this was considered inadequate to provide a good 'garden' boundary within the street scene. On the 21st of October the applicant submitted another amendment that retained the flower bed at 0.3m and included a 1.7m area of grass. A photograph was submitted showing the flower bed as altered / existing. However this would still result in in parking the width of two cars and an overall impression of hardstanding. Concern is raised that such a narrow strip of grass would be problematic to retain given it size.

• 7.2.2 In assessing the proposal consideration has been given to existing hard surfaced garden frontages within the setting of the site. Where planning permission was granted, the permission was given prior to the adoption of the RDG (2021). The adjacent neighbour, no.41, was granted permission post RDG adoption and the design included areas of vegetation habitat either side of the parking and in the middle; as such this was judged acceptable. Section 6.3 within the RDG was introduced to manage the impact of harmful covering over of front gardens resulting in 'car 'park frontages', the cumulative impact of which is considered harmful to overall residential amenity.

• 7.2.2 As such it is considered that this proposal would exacerbate the existing situation because it does not adequately take account of General Policy 2 (b) (c) and (g) in.the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) and the Residential Design Guide (2021).

7.3 Highway impact and drainage

• 7.3.1 The site already benefits from off road parking however the applicant has submitted a plan showing the visibility splays that are achievable for the additional parking. No objections are raised from highways and the visibility is considered acceptable.

• 7.3.2 Concerns were raised regarding the management of surface water. The land between the dwellinghouse and the public highway slopes towards the dwellinghouse. Therefore it is unlikely that surface water would fall onto the public highway. Together with the porous surface material this matter is considered addressed.
• 7.3.3 To manage the increased water within the site the flower bed is retained and a storm drain is included between the front elevation of the dwellinghouse and the new car parking area.
• 7.3.4 The measures are considered adequate to meet the aims and objectives of the s58 of the Highways Act and Manual for Manx Roads.

• 7.3.3 As such it is considered that the proposal accords with General Policy 2 (g) (h) and (i).

7.4 Impact on neighbours

• 7.4.1 As per paragraph 7.2.1, no adverse impacts are observed in respect of the visual impact.

• 7.4.2 The photograph submitted shows the existing use of the hard surfaced driveway and a vehicle parked on the front lawned area. The proposal was to retain this situation by laying hard core across the frontage to create one permeable hard surfaced driveway. The amended scheme submitted on the 21st of October included a 1.7m strip of land proposed laid to grass. The result is still two vehicles parked rather than one driveway and a front garden therefore the harm to residential amenity is not sufficiently diminished to remove the harm.

• 7.4.3 Although the proposal does not directly affect the neighbours either side of the site, the impact of vehicles being parked close to domestic windows is considered harmful because the outlook represents a car park.
• 7.4.4 As discussed above in section 7.3 the cumulative impact of parked cars has an impact on residential amenity and well being because of the overall visual.
• 7.4.5 The application site has access at the rear to a detached garage and land for parking a second vehicles. Therefore it is judged that there is no justification to support an approval that would result in harm to residential amenity.
• 7.4.6 As such there are no adverse neighbour impacts observed however the use as exists and potentially if allowed would overall result in a negative impact contrary to General Policy 2 (c) and (g).

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal is judged to be contrary to the Residential Design Guide (2021) and there is no known justification to approve the harm. In addition the proposal does not accord with the aims and objectives of General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). - 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.

9.5 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: 22.10.2025 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.