Appellant - Rebuttal
From: To: CO, Planning Appeals; Subject: REF AP25/0046 / Planning Ref: 25/80819/B Date: 09 February 2026 20:24:38 Attachments: Addresses for the examples that were not clear on the original submission.docx
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links.
Good evening
Following review, I want to add the attached showing the address of the properties noted in the original submission as for ease for your planning officer.
Rebuttal Summary
As noted previously this appeal challenges the refusal of Planning Application 25/80819/B on the grounds that the decision does not accurately reflect the established character of Hillcrest Grove, nor does it properly balance material considerations in accordance with Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
First, the assertion that the fence is “discordant” and “incongruous” within the streetscene is not supported by the evidence. As documented within the existing Planning Appeal Statement, several properties in the estate have boundary treatments of equal or comparable height, including mature hedging previously present on the appellant’s own boundary. The fence directly replaces hedging of a similar scale & therefore does not introduce a materially new visual impact. The green finish and integrated planting further ensure the development is softened and visually consistent with its surroundings & can be further integrated if necessary.
Second, General Policy 2(b) and (c) require demonstrable harm, not subjective aesthetic judgement. The refusal relies largely on opinion rather than measurable detriment to the streetscene or amenity. No objections were submitted during public notification, and neighbours consider the current arrangement an improvement, a material community-based consideration acknowledged in the Planning Appeal Statement.
Third, the report suggests that privacy could be achieved through hedging or a 1‑metre fence. However, this does not reflect the unique corner location of the property, where natural surveillance and direct sight lines necessitate a more effective and permanent privacy solution than low planting. The assessment fails to consider that hedging previously provided this level of screening, and its removal due to deterioration required a replacement capable of fulfilling the same function, along with the clear timescale to grow such hedging.
Fourth, the examples of other similar fences within the Onchan & Douglas area were dismissed due to lack of house numbers (now attached). Nevertheless, the officer’s own site visit confirmed at least one comparable treatment at 20 Hillcrest Grove. The existence of similar unchallenged boundary treatments undermines the claim that the appellant’s fence is an isolated or harmful feature.
Finally, while the application is retrospective, policy confirms that this is not a material consideration, and the proposal must be assessed as if the fence were not present. When considered on that basis, the key planning tests, character impact, amenity, and proportionality, favour approval.
In conclusion, the refusal does not sufficiently demonstrate planning harm, does not accurately reflect local character, and does not properly weigh the legitimate needs for privacy, security, and residential enjoyment. The fencing represents a reasonable and visually sympathetic boundary treatment that aligns with established features in the area. Approval is therefore justified.
Regards
Addresses for the examples that were not clear on the original submission
No 1 Ballachrink Bray Hill halfway down on left hand side when heading to QB Bray Hill halfway down on left hand side when heading to QB
38 Ballachrink Drive
