Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 25/80819/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Simon & Larna Colquitt Proposal: Erection of fence to residential curtilage (retrospective) Site Address: 4 Hillcrest Grove Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3HY Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.12.2025 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. By reason of the fence's height and position within the streetscene, 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 fails to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan (2016). _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Onchan District Commissioners - No objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of No.4 Hillcrest Grove, Onchan which is a detached bungalow situated within a corner plot to the North of Hillcrest Grove. Hillcrest Grove is a cul-de-sac of 28 detached bungalows. - 1.2 The property has a driveway to the South of the plot, with hedging that runs around the front and the corner going to the west, where the fence starts and wraps around the West and North of the site. To the western side of the fencing there is a gate into the rear garden and an area which was created for a wheelie bin.

1.3 The overall streetscene of Hillcrest Grove is of detached bungalow with parking in front of the dwellings. The boundary treatment to the plots are of hedging of varying sizing, with most being low level and a couple being at the height of the fence proposed. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application seeks retrospective approval for the installation of fencing to the West and part of North of the site. The fencing has synthetic planting situated upon it and painted green to the Western elevation. - 2.2 There is a discrepancy in the details provided on the overall height of the fence, the photograph states that fence is 1.8m high, whilst the covering letter and application form state the fence is 1.77m high. - 2.3 The covering letter states the following, "The proposed fence is essential not only for safeguarding the premises (we have had thefts of garden furniture & a speaker that had been left out overnight & I spend time away from home with work) but also for creating a safe and enclosed environment for our two blind rescue dogs, who require a secure space to move around freely without risk. - 2.4 Given their vulnerability and special needs, the fence will provide much-needed protection from external disturbances and ensure their well-being. Additionally, the fence will provide much-needed protection from external disturbances and ensure their well-being. Additionally, the fence will help maintain privacy and reduce exposure to environmental elements, contributing to a more comfortable and secure living space." PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no previous applications which are relevant to the assessment of this application. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 6 - Onchan. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.

4.2 Given the nature of the residential property and the land designation paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are most relevant to its assessment which set out the general standards towards acceptable development, followed by Environment Policy 22 which sets out prevention of unacceptable harm to the environment and/or the amenity of neighbouring properties. - 4.3 The recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 is also a material consideration particularly those parts in respect of good neighbourliness and overlooking. - 4.4 Furthermore consideration shall also be given to Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of reducing outbreak of fire and preventing criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 in respect of water conservation.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following representations can be found online in full, below is a short summary;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as visibility at adjacent junctions and neighbouring driveway is not significantly negatively impacted in relation to meeting the Manual for Manx Roads guidelines (need to seed plans). (13.10.25) - 5.3 Onchan District Commissioners have considered the proposal and state, "I am directed to advise you that the above application was considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Onchan District Commissioners held on Monday 3rd November 2025. The Board of Onchan District Commissioners would recommend that the application be APPROVED for planning purposes only." (05.11.25)

ASSESSMENT

6.1 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states that there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions or alterations to existing properties where such works

would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or surrounding streetscene in general. As such the main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are the impact of the proposal on the streetscene/ dwelling itself and whether there is an impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

- 6.2 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

• 6.2.1 The area as described in part 1 of this report is generally devoid of fencing or solid boundary treatment along the visible boundaries within Hillcrest Grove, which lends to a soft and open streetscene. The fencing due to its prominent position within the streetscene due to the properties corner position, would be a jarring feature within this and out of keeping with the appearance character formed by the other properties and their gardens.
• 6.2.2 The above is especially noticeable when looking at the previous streetscene and recent sellers information which shows that the property had mature hedging to the boundary.
• 6.3 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 6.3.1 Turning towards whether the proposal would have an impact on neighbouring amenity, the fencing in place to the Western side of the dwelling, is not deemed to have an impact upon the neighbouring amenity.
• 6.3.2 It's noted that the fencing installed is much higher than the previous hedging and as such the neighbouring property to the North, "Jalousie, No.6 Hillcrest Grove," which means that any car using their driveway would have to be upon the pavement prior to be able to safely ascertain if they can leave said driveway. Whilst this is the case, Highway Services have assessed the fencing and state that it would not have an impact on the Highway Safety of neighbouring properties. As such no issues are raised in this respect.

- 6.4 PLANNING BALANCE

• 6.4.1 The applicants have stated within their covering letter two reasons for the proposed fencing, safety and privacy for both themselves and their blind dogs.
• 6.4.2 With regards to safety, the 2010 Google images and even the photo provided to show the previous hedging, show that the hedging was mature we with very little space available at the bottom for animals to go through. Even so a smaller fencing or alterative could have been installed prior to the boundary hedging if safety was an issue. It's also noted that the applicants have provided a photograph from the garden showing the internal fencing. This shows that the there are steps and a raised garden area without any safety barrier which would be unsafe for blind animals to roam around.
• 6.4.3 Secondly turning towards the need for privacy, the existing hedging is quite high, with there being no views available over, whilst it is noted that there are gaps within the previous hedging, these could have been covered in ways which would not have an impact on the character of the overall streetscene, of which the corner plots within Hillcrest Grove have already utilized.
• 6.4.4 On balance, such fencing as erected is considered to constitute an incongruous and unduly prominent feature within the immediate streetscene, which has resulted in an oppressive sense of enclosure to the subject property, whilst detracting from the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene.

CONCLUSION

7.1 Consequently, the development is therefore deemed contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan and represents a discordant and incongruous feature within the streetscene and wider locality. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);

• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 03.12.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.