58596

To The Planning Dept. Planning No. 21 100880/8 Rear Extension at 59 Devonshire Road, Douglas

We Redacted and Redacted as is be granted the status of Interested Persons for the above planning application. We own and used to live in the house next door. No. 59 Devonshire Road and it is this boundary that M° & M°s Harvey (now calling themselves Genesis Building) are building along. Genesis Building were granted permission to build a kitchen extension 20 101079/8 in November 2020. Now they are back wanting to build it even bigger. We strongly oppose this as it will be the start of another "creeping extension" which will progress even further along our boundary and well into their back garden. The side of our house will look out onto concrete. You know and we know that you do not have the power to enforce your regulations. Nothing has to be finished. Even the yellow notice is not displayed at the front of a property. You give people retrospective permission when they break the rules — it is an easy way out for you. Even when a "stop" building order is ignored, you look the other way and issue retrospective permission. This is true. Planning is seen to be unfair, messively favouring one neighbor at the expense of another.

P. t. o

2

Redacted

have already built a garage with bedroom over, which contravened planning permission (it was too big) and they were granted retrospective planning permission. The original planning was in 2006, the retrospective permission was in 2012. So the building work at No 59 has been going on for 15 years. Now they want to add more concrete to our boundary.

We stupidly allowed scaffolding onto our boundary in August 2012 for a supposed month so the so called extension could be rendered and finished. This was not done. The scaffolding blocked a narrow passage created by the Harvey's extension. We had to climb over the scaffolding to get to the side of our property. In January 2013 we asked the scaffolder to remove the scaffolding which he did.

We realized then we would have to move which we did in July 2013.

We have rented out No 57 since then. We have a duty of care to our tenants who should be able to live in peace and use all of the property they are renting. This is why neither Redacted nor any of their builders can have access to any area of No. 57. We never agreed to any of this although the Harvey's say we did. We had never met them until they had bought the house and moved in.

We are both plane born and have lived, worked and paid our taxes all our lives. We do not want this to happen to anyone else. We are approaching our 80s and want to live the rest of our lives in peace.

Redacted