Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90538/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90538/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Kieran & Emily Baxter Proposal : Conversion of front garden into parking area. Replacement of hedging with fencing (retrospective) Site Address : 22 Close Cubbon Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NS
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : 03.08.2025 Site Visit : 03.08.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.08.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development would result in the 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 Close Cubbon. The proposal fails to incorporate 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 42, or the design principles set out in the Residential Design Guide 2021. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is within the residential curtilage of "22 Close Cubbon," which is a semi-detached bungalow (attached via a garage) with two garages situated upon a corner plot where Cubbons Close meets Derby Drive.
1.2 Derby Drive is a two way road up to the last house on the road, with a one way system from Derby Road. Close Cubbon is a cul-de-sac of two parts, with properties being either detached or semi detached.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90538/B
Page 2 of 6
1.3 The locality of Close Cubbon is residential in character with all properties having off street parking with these parking areas being 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 with their being a sense of open space to the frontages, and boundary treatments such as hedges contribute to a well-defined and landscaped streetscape.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application seeks retrospective approval for the removal of the existing front garden, levelling of ground with the creation of a hardstanding and erection of fencing to the exterior of the property boundary.
2.2 The covering letter with the application states the following, "The ground level was raised adjacent to the pavement edge by varying amounts up to 0.75m and can be seen as the horizontal timbers at the base off the fence and results in a maximum height of fence of 2.35m.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Peel Local Plan 1989, 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.
ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 3.1.1 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.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.2 Residential Design Guidance 2021 3.2.1 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.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of three previous planning applications, of which the below application added a secondary garage onto the application site.
PA11/00596/B - Erection of garage extension, installation of dormer and roof light - Permitted
4.2 The covering letter for the application states several properties (No.1,8, 13 & 15) as having their front gardens as hardstanding, of which the properties that have gained planning permission for the works are below; PA09/01777/B - 1 Close Cubbon, Peel - Driveway and access amendments - Permitted
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summary;
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90538/B
Page 3 of 6
5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing these Applications, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the access and visibility onto the public highway would not be hampered by the alterations to the boundary and access." (23.06.25)
5.3 Peel Town Commissioners were consulted on the 18th June 2025, of which no consultation has been received at the time of writing this report, 12.08.25.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 6.2.1 When looking at the proposal in relation to the character and appearance of the overall streetscene, it is noted that the Close Cubbon Cul-de-Sac is defined by the reasonably sized front gardens, all of which have parking and lawn/landscaped gardening within them. There are some properties which have a larger parking area with reduced lawn/landscaped gardens and visa versa.
6.2.2 The proposal within this application is to remove the whole frontage of the property, which will result in the removal of the soft landscaping and the extension of a hardstanding on over 50% of the front garden. This alteration also included the increase of the front garden by varying amounts up to 0.75m which is significant. This proposal is contrary to the Residential Design Guidance which advises against such dominance of hard surfacing in front garden areas to preserve the landscaped character of residential streetscapes.
6.2.3 In relation to the surrounding residential properties, the resulting appearance resembles a commercial or industrial frontage, which is considered to be at odds with the prevailing residential character of Close Cubbon. This is compounded by the fencing which has been erected, which whilst shown at 2m at the lowest point, they do get higher and whilst the agent states they are 2.35m at it's highest, this is incorrect as there are three fence posts prior to the 2m high fencing. As described in Section 1.0 of this report, the street is defined by landscaped front gardens, and a clear separation between parking and garden spaces. The proposal would disrupt this rhythm and introduce a visually intrusive element into the streetscape.
6.2.4 The proposal in itself does not incorporate meaningful mitigation measure such as permeable surfacing, planting strips, or sympathetic boundary treatments. While the Residential Design Guide encourages the integration of soft landscaping to soften the appearance of driveways under part 6.3.10, the plans nor the site visit undertaken demonstrate a comprehensive design response that respects the site context. With this in mind the proposal fails to comply with 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.
6.2.5 Whilst it's noted that the agent on behalf of the application has pointed to several properties which have created additional car parking, not only can one site be found to have Planning Permission, but the amount of space taken up by the parking within this application is drastic compared to the addition of one additional car parking space. The agent on behalf of the application has also pointed out fencing which is within the surrounding streetscene, of which one of the fencing shown is part of the applicants site, of which the part shown at 2m has been altered to this height without the benefit of Planning Permission, it should also be noted due to the elevation change in the streetscene, it is only the corner which is situated at 2m, with the rest of the fencing reducing in height as it goes around the corner. They have
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90538/B
Page 4 of 6
also shown their neighbouring properties at No. 1 Close Cubbon as having fencing, it's noted within their recent planning application for the alteration to the front, that no fencing above Permitted Development was permitted. Both previous fencings can be see via the 2010 Google Streetview mapping.
6.2.6 Given the above, it is considered that the proposal would result in a frontage which is visually harsh and inconsistent with the open and landscaped character of Close Cubbon, where soft boundary treatments and garden spaces contribute to a coherent and attractive streetscene.
6.2.7 Therefore, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable visual impact, and is not in accordance with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5 and Environment Policy 42, or the principles set out in Residential Design Guidance 2021.
6.3 PARKING & HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.3.1 Turning towards whether the proposal would have an increase in parking or any highway safety impacts, whilst the proposal would increase off street parking provisions within the site, prior to the alterations, the site had a suitable driveway which has space for several cars and there are two garages within the application on either side.
6.3.2 The application states that they have not altered the access of which whilst some of it is technically unusable due to the height increase of the ground level the entrance has been altered as per the Google Streetview 2010 mapping. It noted that Highway Services have not raised any objections to the proposal, as such from a Highway Safety point of view the proposal is deemed acceptable. It should be noted that whilst the proposal removes the applicants cars from on street parking, which the estate can facilitate, it does not create a net gain for the estate as a whole.
6.4 AMENITY IMPACTS 6.4.1 Turning toward the amenity impact of the works, the proposal results in a complete loss of the front garden and hedging with the replacement of hardstanding and fencing. As outlined in the Residential Design Guidance 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.
6.4.2 The transformation of the frontage into a hard-surfaced parking area would have limited impacts on neighbours. It's noted that the Planning Statement states, "screened from the neighbours to reduce the visual impact," this in itself shows that the applicants are aware of how large and stark the site is.
6.2.3 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 General Policy 2 (g, h) or the principles set out in Residential Design Guidance 2021.
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 6.3.1 Turning towards the potential environmental and ecological impact of the proposal, the removal of all the soft landscaping and permeable surfaces across the frontage of the site, as outlined in the Residential Design Guidance 6.3.3, front gardens contribute to local biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and climate change adaption, including natural flood risk mitigation. The loss of these features reduces the sites ecological function and it's contribution to the wider urban green network. This is especially noted as the concrete installed is up to 0.75m in part as stated in the Planning Statement, which is a large amount of non-permeable structure.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90538/B
Page 5 of 6
6.3.2 Although no trees were removed as part of the application, the proposal did remove the hedging, which surrounded the site. While these features do offer a modest degree of species diversity, their limited scale means their ecological contribution is minimal. Whilst this is the case, the site's overall contribution to green infrastructure is diminished. With no landscaping being proposed the proposal does not demonstrate best practice in reducing environmental harm as required by General Policy 2(d, l, f) and Strategic Policy 4(c).
6.3.3 Based on the above, 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 General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4, or the principles set out in the Residential Design Guidance 2021 Sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.11.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the proposal could improve off-street parking provision and align with transport policies and guidance, though the amount of cars owned by the applicant, go above and beyond what would be expected in a residential environment, the benefit of the off-street parking is outweighed by the adverse visual impacts on the character and appearance of the site within the streetscene, the residential amenity and environmental quality.
7.2 The loss of soft landscaping and permeable surfaces with the increase in the mass of concrete to facilitate the proposal would diminish the sites contribution to biodiversity and green infrastructure, while the proposal fails to respect the established streetscape or incorporate meaningful mitigation.
7.3 Overall the proposal does not comply with the key provisions of General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4 & 5, Environment Policy 42 nor the Residential Design Guidance 2021 and as such recommended for Refusal.
RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 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).
8.2 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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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.
__
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90538/B
Page 6 of 6
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: 12.08.2025
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal