Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP25/0010 Application No: 24/91399/B

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Site Visit: Monday 14 July 2025 Inquiry: Wednesday 15 July 2025

Appeal made by Mr and Mrs Christian against the decision of the Planning Authority to approve an application for a proposed parking area on vacant overgrown landscaped area on land to the rear of Oakfield, May Hill, Ramsey IM8 2HJ.

Present

Abigail Morgan – DEFA Planning Anna & Lee Christian – Appellants Gareth Roberts – Agent Caroline Smith – Local resident.

Description

• 1. The site is to the rear of a residential dwelling house called Oakfield, Mayhill, Ramsey. The land in question is to the rear of the property and abuts the cul-de-sac of Laurys Avenue. The local character is one of detached residential bungalows, set back from the highway with gardens and parking adjacent to the respective dwellings. There are no parking restrictions on the highway. The end of the cul-de-sac provides turning space and provides access to the dwellings Cooil ny Feeney and Fieldhouse.

Proposal

• 2. The creation of a parking area on vacant land adjacent to the highway and to the rear of Oakfield. The area would accommodate one vehicle parked facing north to south to the highway. Finished in a tarmac finish with a dropped kerb and Aco drain laid across the rear of the parking area to a soakaway and soft landscaped area.

Planning Policy Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP)

• 3. Strategic Policy 5 (S5) requires new development to be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. Spatial Policy 2 (SP2) recognises Ramsey as a Service Centre for development.

• General Policy 2 (GP2) requires development, amongst other things, to respect the character of the site and surroundings and the amenity of local residents. GP2 also seeks, where appropriate, safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space. Development should not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.
• 4. Environmental Policy 42 (EP42) sets out that new development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Transport Policies 4 & 7 (TP 4 & 7) require new and existing highways which serve any new development to be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and that parking is provided to reflect the parking standards.

The case for the appellants The material points are:

• 5. The majority of works were completed before planning was even applied for. The planning notice was not readable from the public highway. Granting permission for this parking space will have a major impact on the parking situation for the residents. Currently 4 Laurys Avenue lies empty due to the residents passing. Should a family purchase this property this could put 3 extra vehicles onto the avenue.
• 6. Losing the cul-de-sac parking will cause problems for all the residents. There have been no issues with parking in thirty years. Sadly, several people will be adversely impacted by the decision to make one parking spot. Furthermore, the applicant lives on May Hill not Laurys Avenue.

The Case for the Planning Authority The material points are: Design and visual impact

• 7. The parking space would not look out of place within the character of the residential area where properties have parking within their respective curtilages. The dropped kerb will ensure compliance with highways. The removal of shrubs and grassland does not require planning consent and there is no mechanism under planning to prevent this. The creation of a parking space would not harm the visual character and quality of the street scene or the property itself.

Residential Amenity

• 8. The level and scale of development are considered to be relatively modest and would not cause harm to the neighbouring amenity through any overlooking or loss of light.
• 9. The existing hard standing area has loose bound stone material, not an "overgrown unmaintained soft landscaped area" as per the existing plans. There are no parking restrictions on the highway enabling parking on both sides of the road. The parking of one vehicle here, without blocking the pavement, would not be seen to be out of character within the residential street scene where properties have parking on their driveways or on the road.
• 10.Whilst the concerns raised from the neighbours are noted, the parking of a vehicle off the road and not obstructing the pavement would not restrict or prevent any vehicle movements within the cul-de-sac or prevent any users of the footpath or access to buried utilities (fire hydrant) within the pavement.
• 11.Although restrictions, through planning conditions, would be needed to ensure no commercial vehicles are parked here and the space is only large enough for one vehicle, off the road and to be used in conjunction with the host property. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with GP2.

Highway Safety

• 12.The proposed creation of a new driveway with a dropped kerb would be appropriate to accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the dwelling house. It is noted this would facilitate parking of one car off the highway and takes into consideration visibility splays and highway safety for all users with clear visibility splays. Highway Services do not object. On balance, the support on this application from Highway Services, and the level of information on drawings, ensures the proposal would comply with the IMSP.

Conclusion – planning authority

• 13.The planning application would be an acceptable form of development within a defined residential area that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the host dwelling in terms of visual appearance, nor would the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities be affected by the proposal.

The Case for the applicant The material points are:

• 14.Over the last 2 years Oakfield has bene fully renovated and restored from a partially dilapidated unhabitable dwelling into a visually appealing home. During the work the land at the rear of the property has been used for construction access and storage of materials, due to the constraints of the single width private road at the front of the property. As the small parcel of land at the rear was overgrown and unmaintained and had no trees or large shrubs on it, it was used as a storage area during the renovation.
• 15.After living in the property, it became apparent that there was an issue with parking. Oakfield has always had gated access at the rear through the original wall built in 1904 and a linking footpath to our gate way, long before the bungalows on the Laurys Avenue were built. The boundary runs up to the back of the public highway footpath, no different to any of the adjacent bungalows, so we have a right to drive and use the road for access and parking.
• 16.The turning head also has two driveways off it at the other point of the turning head. The land has a public main sewer running under and has an easement should the Local Government Drainage Department require access. The land cannot be used to construct a building or garage, because of the easement. At no point can any deep rooting trees be planted, with only low-level shallow rooting shrubs which birds will not nest in.
• 17.There are numerous examples down Laurys Avenue where properties have resurfaced their landscaped gardens with tarmac or paving. The existing landscaping to both of the sides of this area has been retained. The turning head, which is legally required to be clear at all times, is used by vehicles every day of the week and also for parking overnight, making the turning head unusable for any vehicle to turn, especially large emergency service vehicles.
• 18.The turning head has a fire hydrant, which is another reason these vans are parked illegally. Creating the single parking space for Oakfield is only making the traffic and local parking situation better, not worse.

Other Representations Received

• 19.At application stage the Ramsey Town Commissioners raised no comments, DOI Highway Services comment that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions and an agreement for the dropped kerb. DEFA Ecosystems objected to the loss of a landscaped/green

area. The owners of Field House, Woodruff and 5 Laurys Avenue objected on the grounds of the development providing illegal parking, blocking of services, damage to ecology, highway safety issues and maintenance of the area.

Assessment by the Inspector Main Issue

• 20.The effect of the development on highway safety. Reasons
• 21.I accept that it is reasonable to expect the end of a cul-de-sac to be kept clear of parking to allow vehicles to manoeuvre. In my experience parking, on the road, at the end of cul-de-sacs can be most inconvenient. In addition, I see no reason to disagree with the view that a parking space here would not look out of context with the general street scene, given off-road parking is common within residential frontages. Some of that parking has been extended across the front gardens over time.
• 22.I heard at the Inquiry that residents of Laurys Avenue, park vehicles at the end of the cul-de-sac; as evidenced by photographs submitted by the applicant. To that end, from all that I heard and have seen, it seems to me that currently the end of the cul-de-sac is used in a manner that benefits some residents of Laurys Avenue. Whilst that may be at odds with the way cul-de-sacs are usually designed to allow for turning, it is clear that two vans, as pictured in the evidence, have been parking there for some time without concern or complaint.
• 23. I am also in no doubt that occupiers of one of the nearest properties have had emergency vehicles attend the property without hindrance. In addition they continue, due to ongoing health conditions, to rely on clear and safe access to their property. That was undisputed. It seems to me therefore that the current situation has not had a harmful effect on highway safety.
• 24. I say that given the current situation may inconvenience anyone trying to turn around, but that is likely to be someone visiting the properties that have been using the turning head in the way described. In the same way, parking of two vans has meant that they weren't parked elsewhere causing further inconvenience. As the planning authority set out, no laws are being broken; it is an unrestricted highway.
• 25. In that context the proposed parking space should be considered, and I accept that it is likely that at least one of the vans would need to park elsewhere. I also recognise that the original driveways to properties in

• Laurys Avenue are narrow and not best suited to modern cars. There is also a cost associated with making those driveways wider should roadside parking be reduced. Although, I did see original width driveways still being used for parking, they are not therefore completely unfit for purpose.
• 26. I also accept there would be nothing to prevent the users of the new parking space, double parking; a vehicle on the new space and a vehicle on the road adjacent to it. That could cause inconvenience but, given the lack of parking restrictions, there is nothing to stop a vehicle parking on the highway in such a manner in any event. Any commercial use of the parking space could be prevented by way of planning condition.
• 27. Whilst more vehicles may in the future be associated with the sale of No 4, there is nothing before me to suggest that (as with elsewhere in the road) further parking provision would not be provided within the curtilage of that property.
• 28. Bringing all of these matters together, I completely understand that the provision of a new parking space would upset the current residential equilibrium and that some inconvenience is likely to occur. I also recognise that parking in the road, particularly in the evenings, may be busy but Highway Services have not objected to the application and there is nothing to suggest that roadside parking is at capacity.
• 29. Overall, the appellants and neighbours have my sympathy, they are clearly living and parking vehicles in a mutually beneficial way and that would be disrupted. However, there is simply no clear evidence that the proposal would lead to anything but some inconvenience to a few residents. In turn there is nothing to suggest that highway safety would be compromised such that the development would be at odds with planning policy in that regard.

Other matters

• 30.I understand concerns regarding the loss of a landscaped area. However, as set out by the planning authority it is not something that would have required planning permission. Further, there is nothing before me to suggest that any protected species would be harmed by the development. I also understand that the planning notice may not have been readily accessible from public land, but that has not disadvantaged the appellants who have been able to appeal in any event.

Conclusion

• 31.For the reasons set out and having considered all matters raised, I find the development would not harm highway safety or be at odds with the

policies of the IMSP as set out above. The appeal should therefore be dismissed, and the initial approval upheld. I consider that, in addition to the standard time condition, the conditions attached to the original decision would be appropriate. Those conditions, and the reasons for them, were discussed at the Inquiry and some minor amendments made for the sake of clarity. They are reflected in the Schedule of Conditions below.

Recommendation

32.I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority is upheld and planning approval granted for the Proposed Parking Area on vacant overgrown landscaped area at Land to The Rear of Oakfield, May Hill, Ramsey, Isle of Man IM8 2HJ. In accordance with the following drawings:

• 01 - Location Plan
• 02 - Site Plan
• 03 - Existing Block Plan
• 04 - Proposed Block Plan
• 05 - Vision Splay Drawing and subject to the Schedule of Conditions set out below.

Reason: The creation of a parking area on this site would be an acceptable form of development within a defined residential area that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the host dwelling in terms of visual appearance, nor would there be material harm to use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities or that of the highway. As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Environmental Policy 42 and Transport Policies 4&7.

Richard Perrins

Richard Perrins MA Independent Inspector

06 August 2025

APPEAL: AP/25/0010 PLANNING APPLICATION: 24/91399/B

Schedule of Suggested Conditions to be applied if the Minister decides to uphold Planning Approval

• 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 provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or reenacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the area edged in red on Block Plan CW-04.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

• C 3. No permission is hereby granted for the parking of commercial vehicle or any high sided vehicle, caravan, or motorhome within the area edged in red on Block Plan CW-04. Reason: To respect the residential character of the area.
• C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated, and the parking space used for any purpose, until the aco drain channel, soakaway and tarmac finish to the parking area shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Block Plan CW-04 and shall be retained in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure compliance with the approved plans.
• C 5. The parking space hereby approved shall, at all times, be made available for the parking of one private motor vehicle in association with the property "Oakfield” and shall be retained available for such use.

Reason: To provide adequate parking provision to the dwellinghouse and to prevent any commercial use.