Loading document...
Application No.: 25/91068/B Applicant: Mr Anders Halberg Proposal: Erection of boundary wall to residential curtilage Site Address: Ballashee Cordeman Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AJ Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed 2.1m stone wall duplicates the location and height of the stone wall considered unacceptable as part of a 22/00290/B and which was specifically omitted by condition 4 of that approval at appeal. This proposal is considered to undermine that original approval and carries with it the harm as outlined by the Inspector for 22/00290/B in respect of its visual appearance detracting from the traditional nature of the existing buildings and courtyard. For these reasons, the proposal is considered unacceptable and recommended for refusal contrary to and undermining Housing Policies 11 and 15, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: - o Malew Parish Commissioners - No objection It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because: - o Cronk-ny-Shee, Cordeman Road - no objection. _________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application relates to Ballashee, Cordeman Road, St Marks.
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a 2.1m tall stone boundary wall between the dwelling and its immediate neighbour. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site and surrounding area have been subject to a number of previous applications most relevant in this specific case are 22/00290/B and 23/10073/AIR.
3.2 PA 22/00290/B was approved at appeal for the creation of the two dwellings on the site. This application was approved subject to specific conditions which the Inspector considered necessary to protect the character and appearance of the countryside location and original buildings, one condition revoked extension, enlargement and alterations, and one specifically prevented the erection of the subdividing boundary wall (which included a 2.1m high element behind the front building line). Condition 4 stated the following and made specific reference to walling:
"C4. No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall omit the subdividing boundary wall shown on drawings referenced HLK/22/112-03 and HLK/22/112-05 and include an alternative layout to provide a sensitive demarcation of the front courtyard facilitated by soft and hard landscaping. All landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Department. Any trees or plants shown on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development."
3.3 Subsequent application 23/10073/AIR sought to provide a landscaping plan in relation to C4 of 22/00290/B. The case officer reported that the plan showed hard and soft landscaping, and "included in the plan is a section of low level wall with a hedge planted in the centre as an alternative layout to provide a sensitive demarcation of the front courtyard." They considered that this hard and soft landscaping which detailed a 900mm wall and planted hedge separating the dwellings and changing to a 1.2m high wall beyond the front line of the dwellings was deemed sufficient to achieve the desired outcome and would be satisfactory to discharge the planning condition 4.
4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the 1982 Development Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area and is not recognised as being at any flood risk. There are registered trees within the red line for the site, and these are located to the rear of the dwelling RA 0202.
4.2 ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016:
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no objection (05/12/2025). 6.2 The following were consulted but not response received at the time of writing the report 26/01/2026:
6.3 The owners of Cronk-ny-Shee, Cordeman Road - in support (15/12/2025). - 7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The current proposal seeks to revert back to a similar 2.1m high boundary wall akin to that which was originally sought within 22/00290/B and which was specifically conditioned against and omitted by Condition 4 of 22/00290/B within its appeal decision notice.
7.2 There have been no changes to planning policy since the 2022 application and appeal decision, nor any changes since the 23/10073/AIR to warrant reaching a different decision in this case.
7.3 The appeal Inspector of 22/00290/B stated at paragraph 36 "I do recognise that the subdivision of the existing courtyard and the potential for further domestic additions to two properties would, when viewed from afar, detract from the traditional layout of the buildings and may lead the viewer to question how they came to be. Nevertheless, as discussed at the Hearing, such matters are not insurmountable. I am satisfied that conditions removing permitted development rights and requiring submission of landscaping details would resolve any potential harm."
7.4 Approval of such a 2.1m wall as part of this application would be seen to undermine the previous appeal judgment and would still carry with it the harm as outlined by the previous Inspector. - 8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The proposed 2.1m stone wall duplicates the location and height of the stone wall considered unacceptable as part of a 22/00290/B and which was specifically omitted by condition 4 of that approval at appeal. This proposal is considered to undermine that original approval and carries with it the harm as outlined by the Inspector for 22/00290/B in respect of its visual appearance detracting from the traditional nature of the existing buildings and courtyard. For these reasons, the proposal is considered unacceptable and recommended for refusal contrary to and undermining Housing Policies 11 and 15, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM 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:
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):
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: 27.01.2026 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
