Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90146/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90146/B Applicant : Mr Alasdair Birnie Proposal : Creation of parking bay at front of property and erection of summerhouse in rear garden Site Address : Thornhill Highfield Drive Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6EE
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : 29.04.2025 Site Visit : 29.04.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.07.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Notwithstanding the details provided, the boundary wall height adjacent to the public footpath must not exceed a height of 1m throughout its length.
Reason: In the interest of Highway Safety.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, as such the planning application is recommended for approval.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, dated received on 7th February 2025; o Drawing No. EX0 o Drawing No. 1 Parking o Drawing No. 1.1 Parking (Not to scale) o Drawing No. 2 Parking o Drawing No. 4 Parking o Drawing No. 5 Parking o Drawing No. 6 Parking
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90146/B
Page 2 of 5
o Floor Plans, Elevations, Section and Site Plan as Existing o Proposed Summerhouse photos of current site o Floor Plans, Elevations, Section and Site Plan as Proposed o Floor Plans, Elevations, Section and Site Plan as Proposed for Summerhouse o Proposed Summerhouse o Email between the MEA and the applicant
This decision also relates to the following plans and drawings, dated received 9th July 2025; o Drawing No. EX01 o Visibility Splay o Proposed section, plans and photo of railing o Proposed sections and plans of railing __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Garff Commissioners - No objection
It is recommended that the following neighbouring properties should be given the Right to Appeal: Owner/ Occupier "Emscote" - objection __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site is within the residential curtilage of "Thornhill," Highfield Drive, Baldrine, which is a detached bungalow with rooms in the roofspace situated to the North West of Highfield Drive. The property is situated at a higher elevation than the main Highfield Drive road and currently has parking situated to the East of the site, which is steeply graded.
1.2 Several properties within the streetscene have altered their front gardens to prove car parking at roadside level and above, with the property to the North East gaining permission for their car parking alterations under PA13/90985/B.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval in two parts first alterations to the front to create additional car parking and secondly a summer house to the rear.
2.2 The proposal to the front area of the site, will remove two levels of the existing tired front garden to create additional car parking to the side of the existing driveway.
2.3 The proposed summer house is to measure 3.1m by 5.9m with an approximate height of 2.6m and is to be laid from blockwork, with a galvanised roof, bifold doors to the South elevation and a window to the East elevation. The summerhouse will be replacing existing timber structures.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is one previous application which is relevant to the assessment of this application PA22/00879/B - Erection of fencing to side front garden (partial retrospective), which was Approved at appeal.
PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90146/B
Page 3 of 5
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" upon the Area Plan for the East, Map 9 - Baldrine. The property isn't within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone
4.2 ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 4.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies considered materially relevant to the assessment; o Strategic Policies 3 & 5 - promote good design and use of local materials and character o General Policy 2 (b)(c)(g) - general standards towards acceptable development, character and appearance and neighbouring amenity. o Paragraph 8.12.1 - supports principle of extensions and alterations in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area nor Registered Building policies o Environment Policy 42 - promotes development take into account the particular character and identity of the environment.
4.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDANCE 4.3.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance also considered materially relevant: o Section 5 Architectural Details o Section 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summary;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the boundary wall height is no more than 1m from footway level throughout its length - this should be conditioned on permission (for highway safety purposes). (17.02.25)
5.3 Garff Commissioners have considered the application and state, "Members studied the drawings submitted with this application very carefully. Although there were no direct objections, some concern was raised with the integrity of retaining walls. In this respect, Members request that Planning/ Building Control ensure that these are designed/ installed adequately should approval be granted. Members also request that the Planning Officer and Committee consider the impact of the raised parking area on the character of the street- scene." (06.03.25)
5.4 The owner/occupier of "Emscote," Highfield Drive, Baldrine have writing in to object to the proposal on the proposed retaining walls surrounding the parking area, the strength of the existing retaining wall along the public pathways, and that the galvanised roof on the proposed summerhouse is not in keeping with the streetscene. (23.02.25)
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:
6.2 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF PARKING AREA 6.2.1 The main consideration when looking at driveway extensions are whether they will alter how the property is viewed within the overall streetscene and whether they will impact Highway Safety.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90146/B
Page 4 of 5
6.2.2 When looking at the character and appearance of the proposal, it is noted that several properties within Highfield Drive have created car parking to the front of their properties, including the neighbour to the North, as such the proposal within this application would not look out of place within the existing estate setting.
6.2.3 Whilst the proposed works would result in a loss of more than 50% of the front garden, due to the already existing streetscene, the works are not deemed to be an unacceptable level and would maintain an acceptable visual impact on the overall streetscene.
6.3 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.3.1 When looking at the driveway works, they are situated adjacent to an already existing driveway, which when looking at the details provided and having visited the site, it can be seen is very steep.
6.3.2 The comments received from Highway Services state that the proposed works would not have an impact on Highway Safety, and have requested a condition regarding the boundary wall height being no more than 1m high throughout its length. As such the proposal is deemed acceptable from this point of view with a proposed condition.
6.3.3 It should be noted that past the wall the applicant proposes to install a fence for safety reasons, Highway Services have accepted the location of the fence and as such this is separate to the walling condition above.
6.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.4.1 Whilst the comments raised by the neighbouring property are noted with regards to the retaining walls, this is not a matter for the Planning Department and retaining walls of a certain height are assessed under a Building Control application.
6.5 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF SUMMERHOUSE 6.5.1 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions or alterations to existing properties as per Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general.
6.5.2 In the case of this application, due to the properties existing garage and the elevation gain of the site, it is unlikely that the proposed summerhouse would be viewed from the main Highfield Drive road. Whilst this is the case if the proposed works are viewed from the roadside they are unlikely to impact the surrounding streetscene nor the property itself and would be viewed as an residential extension in an already existing residential environment. As such the proposed works are deemed acceptable from this point of view.
6.6 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY OF SUMMERHOUSE 6.6.1 Turning towards whether the proposed works would have an impact of the neighbouring property, due to where the proposal is situated, the closest property to the works is "Emscote" to the North of the site, which is situated at a slightly lower ground level to "Thornhill." The proposed works are of an acceptable level and scale of development and with the proposal being single storey situated approximately 1m to 3.6m away from the boundary, it is judged not to cause harm to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse nor considered to have a harm to "Emscote above and beyond what is in place, enough to warrant refusal.
6.7 OTHER MATTERS 6.7.1 It is noted from the proposal that a large amount of ground will be removed from the site to facilitate the proposed new driveway works, it is noted from the information provided that this will be reused on site. It is also noted that the applicant has discussed the application with the MEA with regards to the existing pole support cables, and an agreement has been meet. As such it is deemed that there is no issue from these point of views.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90146/B
Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall the proposal will be in accordance with Transport Policy 7 by providing two car parking spaces within the residential curtilage and should not be creating any additional impacts to the neighbouring properties/ streetscene with regards to the proposed additional parking and summerhouse and as such the proposal is considered acceptable and deemed to comply with General Policy 2.
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. __
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 : Permitted
Date: 22.07.2025
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