Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90777/B Applicant: Mr Neil Cain Proposal: Enlargement of vehicular hardstanding and widening of access Site Address: 3 Close Toalt Peel Ballawattleworth Estate Isle Of Man IM5 1XB Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed driveway detracts from the character of the area, namely, a soft transition from public green space to private dwellinghouse. It is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide, July 2021 _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DoI Highway Services - No objection DoI Highway Drainge - Objection does not relate to material planning considerations 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: 5 Close Toalt, Peel
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is 3 Close Toalt, Ballawattleworth Estate, Peel, a semi-detached house located on the east of Close Toalt. The road consists of three pairs of semi-detached houses. Each house has a side garage with a driveway in the front. The spaces between the two driveways are lawn. - 1.2 The application house has the same layout as described in 1.1. The existing driveway is approx. 3m wide and 6.9m long. The existing front garden is approx. 30 square metres,
consisting of a 25 square metre front lawn and a grass strip between the driveway and that of No. 5.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is the extension of the existing driveway. The proposal would replace the grass strip between the existing driveway and No.5's with a hard surface. The proposal would also replace 3m of the existing grass area in front of the house with a hard surface.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are no previous applications considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific - 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Peel Local Plan 1989. Strategic Policy - 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g), (h) PPS and NPD - 4.3 No Planning Policy Statement or National Policy Directive is applicable to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance - 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that is considered particularly of material relevance to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 6.3 Front Gardens and Driveways - 5.2 Manual for Manx Roads provides best practices and technical details of how to ensure highways are accessible, safe, inclusive and serviceable.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 6.1 Peel Town Commissioners have not commented at the time of this report (13.08.2025). - 6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (18.08.2025). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. - 6.3 DoI Highway Drainage writes in (27.08.2025) to inform the applicant that no surface water should be discharged onto a public highway. - 6.4 Owners/Occupiers wrote in (21.08.2025) asking whether the existing level difference between the driveways of No.3 and No.5 will be retained and how the new drop curb will affect the storm drain and flooding.
7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The primary considerations for this application are the principle of the development, its impact on the character and street scene of the area and highway safety. Principle of the Development - 7.2 As the development is to increase parking spaces, the foundation of such development is the net increase of parking spaces for the street as a whole, as indicated in the RDG. This means after the development, the sum of the number of parking spaces created off-street and the number of parking spaces remaining on-street should be more than the number of existing parking spaces available on the street. - 7.3 The proposal is to remove approx. a 2.9m section available for a parallel parking space. The existing section between the two driveways is approx. 10.3m. The remaining section would be approx. 7.3m. Both are more than the length of one parking space but shorter than the
7.6 Failing the principle test is an indication that there is little planning benefit from the proposal; unless presented with compelling evidence that outweighs the harm concluded by the principle test, the proposal should be recommended for refusal. The decision is a weighty one that requires careful consideration. Visual Amenities - 7.7 RDG states that for the replacement of the front garden with a parking space, there is a need to weigh the benefit created to the applicant against the impact of the changed surface on the property and its surroundings. Such replacement should only be allowed when there is little negative impact, or the benefits overwhelm the negative impacts created, as "front gardens provide an important physical boundary between a dwelling and the public realm". - 7.8 The most important consideration for such a proposal is whether it will shift the boundary of the public realm. If so, is such a shift acceptable? For this site, the transition is clear: road - garden - dwelling. After the proposal, this tradition is still clear. However, it does blur the boundary between properties. With the grass strip between No.3 and No.5 removed, two thin driveways become one large parking area (with or without the change in levels), which would stand out from its largely grassed surroundings, which is considered to detract from the existing character of the area. Highway Safety - 7.9 As there is no objection from highway services, it is considered that the impact on the highway is considered acceptable. Other - 7.10 No.5 asks about the level difference between the two properties. Given the difference is relatively small, removing this difference alone would not necessarily be considered as development. However, in this proposal, removing the difference would increase the perception that there is one large parking area after the proposal is implemented. - 7.11 The impact of the proposal on highway drainage is regulated under different legislation and therefore not controlled by planning. - 7.12 In the meantime, flooding is a material consideration. However, since the site is next to public green space, it is different to consider that the additional hard surface would increase the risk of flooding to the point where this would be a reason for recommending refusal. Planning Balance Assessment - 7.13 The proposal provides one extra parking space within the area. Still, it does so while detracting from the existing green character of the area, by not only substantially reducing the size of the existing grassed front garden area, but also linking two driveways into one large parking area. The question is whether the benefit of the one parking space can outweigh the harm to the character of the area. - 7.14 On the one hand, the existing road is narrow, and photos and satellite image shows that parking on the roadside would make it harder to pass cars on this road and make it harder to manoeuvre into and out of the driveways. Removing a car from the road would help with traffic efficiency. - 7.15 In the meantime, it's not uncommon for a household to own two cars, and garages are more often being used for storage rather than car parking due to their restrictive size. - 7.16 In addition, there are houses within the area with a front garden that predominantly consists of a driveway. The proposal does not introduce a new appearance into the area. - 7.17 On the other hand, the house sits behind a public green space. The existing design of the front garden provides a softer transition from the public green space to the houses. This
8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 The proposed driveway detracts from the character of the area, namely, a soft transition from public green space to private dwellinghouse. The proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide, July
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:
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):
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: 09.09.2025 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
