Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP25/0038 Application No: 25/90726/B _______________________________________________________________

Report on Hearing into Planning Appeal ________________________________________________________________ Hearing held on: 25 November 2025 Site visits undertaken: 24 November 2025 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal against the decision of the Department to approve the installation of a door to the rear of a garage (retrospective) at Fernlea, Lezayre Road, Ramsey.

________________________________________________________________ Those who participated in the Inquiry: Beverley Fromm – on behalf of the Applicant Peiran Shen - Planning Officer - for the Department Richard Gelder – CEO Manx Petroleum – for the Appellant ________________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background and any procedural matters and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment and recommendation follow.

The development and any procedural matters

• 2. The appeal in essence deals with the insertion of a single UPVC external door with a glazed upper half, into an existing boundary wall between a domestic rear garage at Fernlea, Lezayre Road, and the private car park, manoeuvring area and forecourt to the active business of Ramsey Automotive Centre.
• 3. The door has already been installed hence the alluding to the development being retrospective in the description of the development. The submitted plans are very crude in their drafting and whilst the identified scale is 1:100, when viewed at the appeal site inspection, to my mind, the elevational details are not an accurate representation of the door as installed in the context of the design and height of the wall, nor the juxtaposition of the wall and door with the roof of the existing domestic garage.
• 4. However, I am clear from both the Applicant and the Department that the development has been considered on the actual works carried out on the appeal site, with the application plans being merely informative in terms of the specified measurements. The Appellant agreed and has provided some

• helpful photographs within their submission. I will consider this appeal on the same basis.
• 5. Planning permission was approved, and the decision notice issued for the installation of the rear garage door on 17 September 2025. There were no promoted conditions as the application was for retrospective permission, the installation having already been carried out. This is an appeal to the Minister by Manx Petroleum who own the land over which the door opens and facilitates access for pedestrians from Fernlea. Their case is set out below within this report.
• 6. The submitted reasons for appeal originally included considerations relating to the impact of the installed door on character and appearance of the immediate locality, the structural integrity of the boundary wall following the insertion of the door, and loss of privacy for users of the car park. At the Hearing the Appellant’s representative chose not to defend these reasons for appeal and these matters were not considered any further. The reasons for appeal upon which the Appellant relies are set out below.

Site and surroundings and background

• 7. Fernlea is a semi-detached house fronting Lezayre Road in the centre of Ramsey. There is a side track which provides access to houses in an adjacent terrace. That track also accesses a flat roof triple garage of which two bays are associated with Fernlea. The garage is built hard up to the common boundary wall, more than 2 metres high, between the domestic garage of Fernlea and the private car park of Ramsey Automotive Centre (RAC)1. This outer wall forms the rear wall of the domestic garage.

The background

• 8. The appeal site is owned by the Appellant (Manx Petroleum) but leased to RAC. I heard at the Hearing that the business is well established on the appeal site, and the company undertake servicing, tyres, exhausts and repairs, as well as the sale of accessories. The car park lies behind an existing petrol filling station fronting Albert Road with adjoining frontage units used by other businesses.
• 9. The car park is identified by means of a number of signs and strategically placed bollards, as being for private customer parking only, with the main access being gated.
• 10.The insertion of the single door from the interior of the garage of Fernlea, out onto the private car park, came as a surprise to the RAC as well as to the Appellant. The residents of Fernlea, including children, were observed exiting the newly installed door, which opens out over the car park, crossing the car park and the area behind the frontage units and moving off towards the town centre.
• 11. Following the insertion of the door the Applicant submitted the retrospective planning application now the subject of this appeal, which the Department accepted as development requiring planning permission. As already indicated unconditional planning permission was granted retrospectively.

• 1 Approved under reference PA 08/00701/R.

• 12.The Appellant has raised concerns in respect of trespass over the private car park which the new door has facilitated including it opening outwards over car parking spaces. For clarity, matters of trespass and unauthorised access over private land are civil matters which would need to be pursued via civil action. The Appellant objected at the time the planning application was determined by the Department and therefore, was fully aware of the planning process in progress. In this way there was no disadvantage to the Appellant as their views were able to be made known to the Department before determination. It was also explained to them the position in respect of the infringement of civil access rights being outside of the planning process. Consequently, I do not propose to consider the civil matters relating to access over the appeal site any further.
• 13.However, the Appellant has submitted this appeal and raised concerns which are legitimate planning considerations, and these are set out in the Appellant case below.

Relevant policy2

• 14.The appeal site lies within an area designated as predominantly residential use in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. The planning policies and Strategic Aims and Objectives most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).
• 15.The Strategic Aim of the Government as expressed in the IMSP includes to pursue manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy3.
• 16.The Strategic Objectives to fulfil the Strategic Aim has an economy focus to maintain the viability, vitality and diversity of the economy whilst safeguarding the providing for the needs of existing businesses4.
• 17.IMSP General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes that proposals should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents5, does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety6, and does not prejudice the use of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan7.

Case for the Appellant8

• 18. In granting the approval for this application DEFA has condoned the actions of an individual that decided, without consultation, to install a door in a jointly owned boundary wall. The door now provides access to land which the applicant has no rights of access to.
• 19.It is understood that the repercussions of the planning decision are a matter of law, but how can a planning application be granted knowing that it will result in criminal damage and trespass?

• 2 Policies of most relevance.
• 3 IMSP para 2.3.
• 4 IMSP para 3.4.
• 5 IMSP Policy GP2 (g).
• 6 IMSP Policy GP2 (i).
• 7 IMSP Policy GP2(k).
• 8 Based on the Appellant’s Reasons for Appeal attached to the appeal form and the discussion at the Hearing.

• 20. If this appeal is dismissed having the effect of confirming the grant of planning permission, then DEFA will be sending the message that this is permissible behaviour and any of our neighbours can do the same. Indeed, it sends the message that any person can do as they please with a boundary wall.
• 21. In terms of the planning decision, it is stated that the proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the neighbouring amenities. This is not correct. The car park area is private land and is leased to the Ramsey Automotive Centre ("RAC") who undertake vehicle servicing and valeting and frequently move vehicles around the site.
• 22. The Residential Design Guide (July 2021), paragraph 7.1.3 states:

'It should also be noted that, whilst the Department does not involve itself in ownership issues between neighbours (as these are a civil matter), applicants should ensure that no part of the extension (including foundations and guttering) crosses the boundary line. '

• 23. The door installed opens outwards, across the private car park space, crossing the boundary line and as a result obstructing car parking in the private car park.
• 24.The RAC entered the lease with Manx Petroleum knowing that there were no rights of access or easements on the car park area and that they would be free to enjoy unrestricted use of the land. The applicant has advised Manx Petroleum that he wishes to use the door to exit his property with his dogs and grandchild. There will be an obvious safety risk to the applicant and his family from vehicle movements associated with the use as a commercial garage, as well as from other activities associated with the servicing and repair of vehicles, and the risk to the tenant's employees of causing injury when they have sole right of use and access.
• 25.Additionally, the door opens outward into the car park area resulting in a small part of it becoming unsafe to use. No doubt the additional risk will impact the site's liability insurance premium which is simply unjust.
• 26.Furthermore, the door installation resulted in a hole being created in the boundary wall. Granting permission for this impacts our enjoyment and ability for any future development of the car park area. It is our understanding that future development is a key consideration of a planning application, and it should not be negatively impacted. Again, this application and the door installation have most definitely had a negative impact on our right to future development.

Case for the Applicant9

• 27. The Applicant has only recently moved into Fernlea. Following a malfunction of the garage door they wanted to install an emergency exit to the garage to provide another means of access/exit. They were aware the rear car park was private but assumed this was only for vehicular access and that pedestrians could use it unimpeded. They did not make further checks in this regard. The door was then installed.

• 9 In the main the Applicant relied on the case in support of the planning permission as presented by the Department. Some comments noted and made at the Hearing have been included.

• 28. They use the new door to reduce the walking distance from Fernlea to the Town Centre, Bus Station and Play Park. There have been some road works in the vicinity of Lezayre Road which have proved problematic for them accessing their home.

Case for the Department10

• 29. The key considerations of this application are the design of the building itself, its impact on the character and streetscene of the area and the amenities of the neighbours.

Design of the Building Itself

• 30. The garage has a practical design, and the door is not considered to harm the design of the garage.

Character and Streetscene

• 31. The door also creates an opening in the boundary wall of the car park. The blank wall and the rear elevation of houses are not unusual character that qualify for protection. The addition of a uPVC door is not considered to harm the character of the area.
• 32.The proposal is not readily visible to the public and is therefore considered to have no impact on the streetscene.

Neighbouring Amenities

• 33.Photos show the door open outwards onto the car park and demolished part of the car park's boundary wall. Whether the opening method would impair the usage of the car park is a civil matter and not regulated by planning. At the same time, a planning decision does not override ownership or (lack of) easement.
• 34.The overlooking created by the door is no more intense than the existing overlooking created by windows on the house's rear elevations. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to have an overlooking impact.

Conclusion

• 35.The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character and streetscene of the area and neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and is recommended for an approval.

• 10 Source - the Planning Officer’s report.

Inspector Assessment

• 36. As already indicated above the Appellant confirmed they did not wish to defend their grounds of appeal in respect of character and appearance and loss of privacy. The Department briefly considered these matters in their case as set out above. I do not intend to consider these matters further.
• 37. However, the Appellant has raised the matter of the impact of the use of the new door on firstly, the safe operation of the car park/operational area of RAC, including any impact on the safety of highways users, both pedestrian and in vehicles, and, secondly, whether the use of the door would unacceptably impact the economic well-being of the business of RAC, both presently and into the future. I consider both matters to be legitimate planning considerations. These were raised by the Appellant as part of the grounds of appeal and were discussed at the Hearing, although I am not aware of any written submission in this regard from either the Department or the Applicant.

Safe operation of the car park

• 38. The new door opens out over the car park taking out a number of car parking spaces. This would certainly impede the operation of the car park. However, the main issue, in this regard, is that the door has facilitated the ability of pedestrians to emerge out into the car park unexpectedly when vehicles could be manoeuvring or activities being undertaken in connection with the servicing and repair of vehicles in the open air. These vehicles could include vans and small lorries as well as cars. Visibility may be restricted by other parked vehicles and, as a result, the safety of pedestrians, which the Applicant has confirmed may include Grandchildren, would be unguaranteed.
• 39. IMSP Policy GP2 (i) requires that development should not have an unacceptable effect on road safety. Whilst this is a private car park and not directly forming part of the wider public highway network, what the Applicant has done is to try to establish a right of way over the private car park. I appreciate this is a civil matter between the parties, but what the access via the door does do is to place pedestrians at risk from vehicular movements. In addition, those driving and manoeuvring vehicles in the car park would also be at risk of being involved in an incident with unanticipated pedestrians.
• 40.In these specific circumstances I do not consider it unreasonable to stretch the terms of IMSP Policy GP2 (i) to include the use of the door as having an unacceptable effect on road safety. This would be of considerable negative weight against the installation and use of the door.

Economic well-being

• 41. The IMSP has an economy focus to maintain the viability, vitality and diversity of the economy whilst safeguarding and providing for the needs of existing businesses. Prior to the door being installed the RAC could make whatever operational decisions it needed to for the benefit and development

• of its business, in the knowledge of the private limited, controlled access to their car park. The use of the door by pedestrians in an uncontrolled manner would introduce an uncertainty about the way RAC could operate which could undermine day to day operations as well as development going forward.
• 42. Whilst RAC may only make a limited contribution to the overall economic well-being of the Island, as an existing business Government strategy in seeking to safeguard and provide for the needs of businesses equally applies to small and large Island commerce alike. The installation of the door and its use would prejudice the use and development of the adjoining car park for the legitimate business operations of RAC11. Pedestrian activity not associated with the active business use, could also present limitations to the future potential development of the Appellant’s site. This would undermine and unacceptably harm IMSP strategy of supporting manageable and sustainable growth in the economy as well as IMSP Policy GP2 (k).

Conclusion

• 43. The appeal development may seem very minor in nature, but its impact would significantly prejudice the use and future development of the adjoining land for the current business user, as well as those into the future. Having evaluated the appeal development against the relevant policies and strategic aims, objectives and focus of the IMSP, I find significant harm to the safety of pedestrian and vehicle users, along with the undermining of the economic wellbeing and development of the Island which would warrant allowing this appeal.

Recommendation

• 44. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be allowed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority would be overturned, and planning approval would be refused for the installation of a door to the rear of a garage (retrospective) at Fernlea, Lezayre Road, Ramsey.
• 45.Should the Minister not agree with my recommendation then the appeal would be dismissed, the decision of the Department being upheld. No conditions have been promoted in the event of planning permission being confirmed and none come to mind as this appeal seeks retrospective permission.

Reasons for Recommendation

• 46.The appeal development presents unacceptable harm to the safety of both pedestrians and business vehicle operators, in an environment of conflicting movements across the car park, damaging the safety and convenience of the nature of the existing car park access and the adequacy of the parking, servicing and manoeuvring space for business users. Further, through the installation of the door and its continued use, facilitating pedestrian access across the commercial car park, the strategy for the economic development of the Island would be undermined through the restriction of both day-to-day operations, and the uncertainty for the future development of the business on the

• 11 This would equally apply should the business user change of the units and car park behind Fernlea.

neighbouring site,. In this way the terms of IMSP Policy GP2 and Strategic aims and objectives would be unacceptable compromised12.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector

15th December 2025

• 12 The terms of the recommendation are suggested to the Minister as the reason for refusal.