**Document:** Officer Report
**Application:** 25/90826/B — Erection of fence and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective)
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2025-12-04
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/33356-braddan-corneilagh-38-ballachrink-drive-fence-retrospective/documents/1147235

---

# Officer Report

## PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

**Application No.:** 25/90826/B
**Applicant:** Robert Todd
**Proposal:** Erection of fence and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective)
**Site Address:** Corneilagh 38 Ballachrink Drive Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4NQ
**Planning Officer:** Peiran Shen
**Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation
**Recommended Decision:** Refused
**Date of Recommendation:** 28.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The fences by virtue of their design, height and scale along the roadside have a significant adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the character and appearance of the area/street scene introducing an incongruous feature to the boundaries of the site and therefore contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. - R 2. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the additional surface water runoff from the new hardstanding would be retained within the site and not runoff onto the public highway which would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Onchan District Commissioners - No objection Department of Infrastructure - No objection/reason for refusal

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Corneilagh, 38 Ballachrink Drive, Onchan, a detached house located on the west of the junction between Ballachrink Drive and Snaefell Crescent. The house sits below road level, and so does its garden. There is a short boundary wall along the boundary between the house and the roads. - 1.2 The house has a flat-roof garage at the rear of the house and fronts onto Snaefell Crescent. There is a grassed area next to the garage, which is delineated by fences. - 1.3 Ballachrink Drive consists of detached houses and terrace houses. The detached houses mostly have a short boundary wall and hedges along the front boundary. The terrace houses mostly have a grassed area in front of the house. - 1.4 Snaefell Crescent consists of detached houses. Most of which have a short front boundary wall and hedges along the front.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application seeks retrospective approval for the erection of fences along the boundary with Ballachrink Drive and Snaefell Crescent, as well as with 36 Ballachrink Drive. The fences are either 1.8m or 2m in height. - 2.2 The proposal also includes removing a section of the existing boundary wall (also retrospective). It is an approx. 5.5 m section on the northern boundary of Snaefell Crescent. - 2.3 The proposal also includes converting the existing grassed area next to the garage into a hardstand/driveway, which is about 16 square meters. It is approx. 5.8m wide along the roadside and 3.4m wide at the other end.

## - 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There is no previous application 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 Area Plan for the East. Strategic Policy

4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan has no assumption in favour of new development. In decision-making, approval should usually not be granted where a planning application conflicts with the Plan. - 4.4 General Policy 2 (b) (c) and (g) set out design requirements for development, of which they should respect the character of the site itself and its immediate and not-so-immediate surroundings. PPS and NPD - 4.5 No planning policy statement or national policy directive is considered materially relevant to this application.

### 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance

5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Chapter 6.1 Boundary Treatments - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

- This section is a summary. The original texts of the consultations and comments received are available on the Planning Application Search on the government website.
- 6.1 Onchan District Commissioners have no objection to this application (29.09.2025).

6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (15.09.2025). The comment states there is no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the rear driveway visibility onto the footway and junction visibility of Snaefell Crescent onto Ballachrink Drive are not significantly negatively impacted by the erected fence. - 6.3 DoI Highway Drainage wrote in (23.09.2025), reminding the applicant that no surface water may be discharged onto the highway.

### 7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessments

7.1 The primary considerations are the impact of the proposal on:

- o character and streetscene of the area
- o amenities of the neighbouring properties Character and Streetscene

7.2 The fences along the road are visible to the public. They are even arguably at a prominent location, being a road junction. The area clearly has an existing character. A part of which consists of soft front boundary treatment, with either an open grass area or a short boundary wall with tall hedges. The contrast between the proposed fences and their surroundings is so sharp that it is clearly detracting from the existing character and appearance

of the area. Neighbouring Amenities

7.3 The fences are not considered to harm neighbouring amenities. Planning Balance Assessment - 7.4 On the one hand, the fence comes from a natural need for privacy. As a house located next to a junction, almost all of the garden and most of the windows of the house are exposed to public view, which is less than ideal compared to the expected privacy level of a typical detached house. - 7.5 On the other hand, this is the only house with fences along the roads near this junction. As mentioned in 7.2, the sharp contrast detracts from the character of the area, namely, soft front boundary treatment. The question is whether this harm is sufficient to outweigh the need for privacy in this case. - 7.6 It is considered that the harm outweighs the need for privacy in this case. This is because the fence is not the only option for a privacy screen. Hedges are possible and can be effective while still maintaining sufficient garden space for this house. In other words, the harm to the character of the area is unnecessary. In addition, the contrast in boundary treatment created by the fence is too sharp to be considered acceptable within the area. Therefore, the fences along the roadside should be refused. Other - 7.7 The partial boundary wall removal, the fences along the boundary with No. 36 and the principle of the additional hardstanding at the north of the site are not considered to harm the character of the area or neighbouring amenities. Since an application can only be approved or refused as a whole, they are included within the recommendation for refusal. However, given the lack of any information of how the surface water runoff from the new hardstanding has been submitted, it is considered this is a additional reason for refusal.

## - 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The fences along the roadside detract from the character of the area, namely, a softtreated front boundary. Further insufficient information has been provided in respect to surface water runoff from the new hardstanding. Therefore, it is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide and is recommended for a refusal.

## - 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:

- 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.

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):

- 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 : Refused Date: 04.12.2025 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.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/33356-braddan-corneilagh-38-ballachrink-drive-fence-retrospective/documents/1147235*