REP Comment 1 Rose Cottage

Comments and Objection to Retrospective Planning Application 21/00998/B 'Erection of Raised Decking (Retrospective) Villa Rhencullen, Rhencullen, Kirk Michael, Isle of Man. IM6 2HA'

We are the owners of Rose Cottage, which is the neighbouring property and would like to be considered for Interested Person Status.

Contact details: Redacted

Rose Cottage

Rhencullen

Kirk Michael

Isle of Man

IM6 2HA

Email: Redacted - Redacted

We are happy to receive communications via Email.

Context

Villa Rhencullen was purchased and occupied in 2018/2019. Since then, the owners have embarked upon a substantive redevelopment of the property, facilitated by a number of approved planning applications namely,

19/00337/B: Alteration and erection of an extension to the property 20/00475/MCH: Alteration to construction and roof materials 20/00795/B: Erection of a detached garage / carport

During this period, a substantial area of raised decking was also constructed at the front boundary of the property and the side boundary of our property, Rose Cottage. No planning approval was sought for this aspect of the property's development. Its size, height and position at the front corner of the property means that it overlooks and overbears our property as well as impacting the street scene from both directions.

The decking has been built right up to the front boundary wall of Villa Rhencullen
The decking has been built right up to the side boundary with Rose Cottage.

(Please note: the site plan submitted Redacted is inaccurate in this respect. We have submitted an amended version of Redacted Site Plan, included as Annex 1(a) showing the actual position of the deck, (Added in Blue) which can be confirmed by a site visit).

The deck is raised to the full height of Villa Rhencullen's boundary wall, which is over 1m above the surrounding ground level.

The deck itself sits approximately 1m above our property, with the associated handrails rising a further 1m above that.

From the garden of Rose Cottage, the deck sits right on our boundary and some 2m above us.

The decking's relationship with the boundary of Rose Cottage can be seen in the photograph from our garden included as Annex 2.

In March 2021, a prospective buyer of our property pulled out of the purchase citing the decking as the reason for their withdrawing from the sale. They also cited Para 4.7.4 of the Residential Design Guide (2019), (RDG). This was the first occasion on which we realised that Redacted had not applied for planning permission and had built the decking in breach of the planning regulations.

At this time and on several occasions since, we have contacted Redacted to see if we could reach a neighbourly agreement on how we might alter the decking so that he could retain a substantial portion of the decking, but that it would be moved away from the boundary and screened in accordance with the guidance contained in the RDG (2019). However, on Monday 23rd August he passed us a letter explaining that he had decided to apply for retrospective planning permission for the deck.

We include this narrative to demonstrate that, immediately after realising the deck required planning permission and for over seven months, we have been trying to reach a neighbourly accommodation with Redacted but, after repeatedly promising to mitigate the effects of the decking, he has consistently chosen not to do so.

Detriments caused by the unauthorised development

The position and scale of the unauthorised development cause a substantial detriment to our amenity. Para 4.7.4 of the RDG (2019) states,

"Raised decking, terraces or patios that are higher than 0.3 metres require a specific planning approval. It is a requirement to ensure that neighbours' privacy is maintained by installing screening (fence, hedge etc.) that reaches the height of 1.8m above ground level. Screening will only be appropriate if it does not cause loss of light and/or be overbearing to an adjoining property. These areas should be designed sensibly in order to avoid dominance at the front boundary of a property. Large areas of decking are unlikely to be supported at the side or front of a property."

We include the photographs at Annex 3 a, b and c, which have been taken respectively from the front bedroom window and the only window in our bathroom. These photographs show clearly that the decking has been constructed right up to the boundary of the properties and our two upstairs windows look directly out onto the decking. The photograph at Annex 4 shows the decking from the rear of our property, beside the kitchen. These photographs also show that no attempt has been made to screen the decking from these habitable windows, or from our garden.

The photographs at Annex 5 a, b, c and d show how the decking overbears and overlooks the front boundary of Villa Rhencullen, the footpath and the road approach, visually impacting the street scene in both directions, and also how it overbears and dominates our property.

Section 7.0 of the Residential Design Guide (2019) considers the impact on neighbouring properties and includes the following guidance;

2132271

Girren sudded arera indictes peition of deukins. Thes is not Diz.iv to scale