**Document:** DEFA Statement of Case **Application:** AP25/0047 — Appeal against the refusal for the erection of fence and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) **Decision:** Not Available **Decision Date:** **Parish:** Onchan **Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/130709-onchan-corneilagh-38-ballachrink-erection-boundary/documents/1591771 --- # DEFA Statement of Case ## Please reply to the signatory Tel: (01624) 685950 Fax: (01624) 686443 Our Ref: 25/90726/B Email: planning@gov.im Abigail Morgan MRTPI Ms L. Milestone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN Interim Director of Planning & Building Control 30th Jan 2026 Dear Ms Milestone, PA No: 25/90826/B Proposal: Erection of fence and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) Address: Fernlea Lezayre Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2LN Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application. The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report, which was determined under delegated power on 4th December 2025, which is online and forms part of the planning file. In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached. Yours sincerely, Peiran Shen ## This page has been left blank by intention. ## Appendix 1 – Statement of Case STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to: Erection of fence and creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) Corneilagh 38 Ballachrink Drive Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4NQ PA Reference 25/90826/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Planning Officer Peiran Shen ## This page has been left blank by intention. - 1.0 REASON FOR APPROVAL The reason for the application refusal was: “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. - 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.” 2.0 LEGAL AND POLICY POSITION In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act, the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to — - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A; - (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; - (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and - (d) all other material considerations. There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker. That being said The most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and Area Plan, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process and are adopted by Tynwald. The Residential Design Guide (RDG) follows targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight. It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh those set out above. In the meantime, also different from the UK, there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF. - 3.0 ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT A summary of the appellant’s statement is as follows: - 1. High Boundary Fences are a Part of the Character of the Area There are existing houses with a 1.8m-high fence on the front boundary within walking distance of the house, meaning it is part of the existing character. - 2. Personal Needs The fences are needed for keeping dogs within the property. - 3. Precedence There are houses with similar fences near the house. - 4. Hardstanding will be Permeable The applicant proposes to use a permeable surface for the hardstanding. THE FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THESE ISSUES DIRECTLY - 4.0 RESPONSE TO REASONS FOR APPEAL For a complete assessment of the initial application, please refer to the Officer’s Report, which would have been supplied with the initial documentation. 4.1 Existing High Boundary Fences The appellant listed other properties nearby: - • 83 Barrule Drive (on the other side of the road from 16 Ballachrink Drive) - • 1 Ballachrink Drive (house corner of Main Road and Ballachrink Drive) - • 82, 60, 58, 36 and 34 School Road (houses at School Road and Ballachrink Drive) Acknowledging these fences, they are still not considered to be part of the character of the area. Section 1 of the Officer’s Report describes that high fences are not used for boundary treatment on Ballachrink Drive. This is especially true at the junction next to the application site. 1 Ballachrink Drive has high fences along the roadside. However, there is no planning application for its approval. The character of the area is still either open or with soft boundary treatment, made up of hedges and low boundary walls or grass areas. The houses on Barrule Drive and School Road differ in form from those on Ballachrink Drive. While they are adjacent to each other, each forms a distinct character on its own. This is to say that Ballachrink Drive has its own character, which does not include high fences on the front boundary. - 4.2 Personal Needs Keeping dogs from running off-site is understandable. This can be achieved through other methods, including placing fences behind hedges. It is also not considered to outweigh the harm the fence created on the streetscene and character of the area. - 4.3 Hardstanding The Department accepts that, if the appellant demonstrates that the proposed hardstanding does not harm highway safety and does not discharge surface water onto the highway, the Department will accept the proposal. It can be conditioned upon an overturned decision. 5.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS In the event the proposal is recommended for approval, the following conditions should be considered as part of the approval notice: - 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. - 2. No development shall commencement until the following details have been submitted in writing to and approved by the Department: Demonstration of how surface water runoff from the new drive will be prevented from running onto the adjacent public highway and where such water will be drained too. These approved details shall be completed prior to the occupation of the driveway by any vehicle (excluding construction vehicles) and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of surface water runoff and highway safety. --- *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/130709-onchan-corneilagh-38-ballachrink-erection-boundary/documents/1591771*