Planning Officer - Statement of Case
Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: 25/80819/B
Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN.
Tel: (01624) 685870 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]
Jennifer Chance MRTPI Director of Planning & Building Control 20th January 2026 Dear Sir/Madam,
PA No: 25/80819/B Proposal: Erection of fence to residential curtilage (retrospective) Address: 4 Hillcrest Grove, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 3HY
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 by Delegation on 3rd 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 along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Vanessa Porter Planning Officer
STATEMENT OF CASE Department of Environment Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
Erection of fence to residential curtilage (retrospective) 4 Hillcrest Grove Onchan Isle of Man IM3 3HY PA Reference – 25/80819/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Planning Officer Mrs Vanessa Porter
- 1.0 Reason for Refusal
- 1.1 Planning Application 25/80819/B was refused under delegated authority on the 3rd December 2025, for the reasoning of the fence's height and position within the streetscene and that the development is considered to be out of keeping within the locality and represents a discordant and incongruous feature within the streetscene and immediate surrounding area. As such, the fencing would cause harm to the overall streetscene and would fail to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
- 1.2 The Department relies upun the Officers report and Decision Notice to provide the detail of its case. These documents, the policies and historic planning applications referred to therin are all available to view online and so it is not necessary to repeat nor attach them here. Following a summary of the legal and policy position, the remainder of this Statement therefore addresses the specific points raised in the Ground of Appeal, and provides a list of suggested conditions to be applied in the event the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted.
- 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.
In this application, the most weight has been given to the Stratgeic Plan and the Area Plan for the East as they have been through the statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adpoted by Tynwald.
Other material considerations reffered to in the officers report include the Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and therefore been afforded greater weight.
Other material considerations do not outweigh those set out above.
- 3.1 The officers report sets out the reasoning with regards to the refusal of the application. When assessing an application which is retrospective, the planning authority must consider the proposal against the relevant planning policies and material considerations applying the same principles as it would to any other submission. It is important to note that the retrospective nature of the
- application is not material to the planning assessment, which must be undertaken as through those elements are not present.
- 3.2 When looking at the reasons for refusal the applicant has provided several photographs around the overall housing estate for fencing as examples of other properties which have erected fencing, as no house numbers have been provided it’s hard to provide context on where these are situated within the estate itself. During the officers site visit, the cul-de-sac was checked of which only one fence was seen, which was at No.20 Hillcrest Grove, of which no Planning Permission has been given.
- 3.3 Overall it’s noted that the due to the property’s location, there is a natural need for privacy, whilst this is the case, this property is the only house with regards to fencing along a junction in the immediate vicinity, and as such it is considered that the hard outweighs the need for privacy in this case. The reasoning for this is that there are other options for privacy as shown by the surrounding properties, such as hedging which is possible and effective whilst still maintaining sufficient space for the property. Also when assessing the existing hedging and the issues with the lower half, a small fence up to 1m high which would be possible under Permitted Development could have been erected.
4.0 Response to the Reasons for AppealSuggested Conditions
C1 - 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.
