Appellant - Statement of Case

Planning Appeal Statement Site: 4 Hillcrest Grove Onchan Application Ref: planning application Ref 25/80819/B Appellant: Simon & Larna Colquitt

1. Introduction

This statement sets out the grounds of appeal against the Department’s refusal of planning permission for the retention of a boundary fence at the above address. The reasons for refusal are respectfully challenged on the basis that the development does not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the area, does not adversely affect highway safety or neighbouring amenity, and provides legitimate and necessary benefits relating to security, privacy, and residential use of the property.

2. Streetscene and CharacterOfficer’s Assertion

The Department contends that the fence is out of keeping with the streetscene and introduces a discordant feature.

Response

• • The officer acknowledges that several properties on Hillcrest Grove already have boundary treatments of similar height, including hedges “at the height of the fence proposed”. (See Picture 2 & 3) This demonstrates that taller boundary features form part of the established character.
• • The fence directly replaces mature hedging of comparable height(see picture 1), as confirmed by the officer’s reference to historic imagery. The visual impact is therefore not materially different from the previous situation.
• • The fence is finished in green with synthetic planting, providing a softened appearance that integrates with the surrounding vegetation.
• • General Policy 2(b) and (c) require evidence of unacceptable harm. The refusal relies on subjective aesthetic preference rather than demonstrable harm.
• • We would add that after speaking to neighbours that they are of the opinion that what’s there now is a marked improvement on previous – we would also note that there did not appear to be any objections to the displayed planning application.

Corner Plot Position and Back-Garden Relationship Officer’s Assertion The Department argues that the corner plot position increases the visual impact of the fence. Response

• • A corner plot does not automatically result in visual harm, nor does it remove the our right to secure and define their boundary.
• • The officer’s assessment focuses solely on visibility from the street but fails to consider the functional layout of the site. Due to the corner configuration, the western and northern boundaries form part of the rear garden enclosure, not the principal frontage.
• • In planning terms, rear-garden boundaries are routinely permitted at similar or greater heights because they serve essential privacy, amenity, and security functions. The fact that this rear boundary meets the street due to the plot layout does not alter its planning status.
• • The fence therefore performs a standard rear-garden function, and its height is typical of residential boundary treatments across the Isle of Man (see pics 4,5,6,7)
• • The streetscene is not uniformly “open”, as acknowledged by the officer. The presence of existing tall boundaries demonstrates that the development is not out of character.

Streetscene Impact Officer’s Assertion The fence disrupts the “soft and open” character of Hillcrest Grove. Property owners Response

• • The character of the street is varied, with differing hedge heights and boundary treatments.
• • The fence is positioned along the west and part of the north boundary only, the principal frontage remains unchanged.
• • The officer relies on historic imagery rather than the actual condition of the hedging prior to installation (again I would refer you to Picture 1), which had deteriorated and no longer provided adequate screening or security. We have spent a lot of money bringing this property & the gardens to a high standard & will be concluding work to the front of the priority spring 2026

• • The Strategic Plan requires a balanced judgement, not preservation of a past aesthetic at the expense of legitimate residential needs.

Neighbouring Amenity and Highway Safety Officer’s Assertion The fence may affect visibility for vehicles exiting No.6’s driveway. Response

• • Highways Services raised no objection, confirming that visibility is not significantly affected. This expert assessment should carry substantial weight.
• • The officer’s contrary view is not supported by technical evidence.
• • The fence height is comparable to the previous hedging, meaning visibility conditions have not materially changed.
• • The property owners of No 6 discussed with us their need to remove their existing hedge & subsequently contributed to some of the cost of the said fence – had there been an issue at the time this was never raised.

Security, Privacy, and Residential Need Officer’s Assertion

The Department suggests that alternative measures could have been used and questions the relevance of internal garden levels.

• • Crime prevention and residential security are recognised planning considerations under the Strategic Plan (Community Policies 7 & 11), given issues we have a blink camera system installed to the rear of the property.
• • The property had been unoccupied for circa 48 months & the garden & hedges were poorly maintained
• • The previous hedging had gaps and inconsistent density, making it unsuitable for containing blind rescue dogs and inadequate for preventing opportunistic access along with privacy as the property sits lower than the road (see pic 8) to understand the lack of privacy before the fence
• • The fence provides a predictable, tactile boundary essential for visually impaired animals to navigate safely.

• • Internal garden levels are irrelevant to the need for a secure perimeter – however the garden has not been finished as would be noted from your internal inspection
• • The suggestion that alternative measures could have been used is speculative and not a valid planning reason for refusal – we looked closely at permission before undertaking the garden, we approached Onchan commissioners who referred us to planning, I visited the planning office and subsequently emailed further info over 08/04/2025 a Response from * ( I will note my comments regarding this email under a separate section). Please also see picture 8, 9, 10) re current fencing around Birchill.

Planning Balance

The fence does not create an oppressive sense of enclosure, as claimed. It is not located on the principal frontage and does not dominate the public realm. The term “oppressive” is subjective and unsupported by measurable criteria, we on the other hand find it a calming, private area to relax. The fence is lower than many standard 2m residential boundaries commonly approved across the Island.

The benefits of the development including security, privacy, safeguarding vulnerable animals, and maintaining a consistent boundary height with the previous hedging — clearly outweigh any minor visual change. The refusal does not demonstrate actual harm and relies on subjective preference rather than policy-based assessment.

8. Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, we the homeowners respectfully submit that the development does not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the area does not adversely affect neighbouring amenity or highway safety, and provides legitimate and necessary residential benefits. The refusal is therefore unjustified, and we request that the Minister allow the appeal and grant planning permission.

We would add that after speaking with various neighbours they have no objections & actually commented it looks better than it did!

• • Highways Services raised no objections.
• • Onchan Commissioners recommended approval.
• • The fence replaces hedging of similar height.
• • The officer’s concerns are subjective and unsupported by evidence.
• • The Strategic Plan supports residential security, privacy, and good-neighbourliness.
• • The visual impact is minimal, localised, and consistent with existing boundary treatments.

Simon & Larna Colquitt

22/12/2025

*Planning email response from was as below

I would again argue that the above extract from the Permitted Development Order document is extremely difficult for a standard homeowner to interpret. The wording is highly technical, contains no plain-English explanation, and is not presented in a way that makes it easy for a member of the public to understand what does or does not require planning approval. As such, it is challenging to determine how these provisions apply in practical, real-world situations without further clarification.

• Pic 1 – Planning refer to this hedge in section 6.4.2 & 6.4.3 as ‘Very little space for animal to go through’ I would argue that as the owner of two small Shizu’s this is clearly shows the hedge & gap has more than enough space for an Animal to escape.
• Pic 2 & 3 - Number 2 Hillcrest Grove & Number 3

Picture 4, 5 ,6, 7 all show fencing within the Ballachrink area / Bray Hill

• Pic 8 – Taken from our dining room – so privacy is an issue
• Pic 9,10,11 – Areas around Birchill Main Road Maple Ave

The below property is the rear of Hawthorn Close - front of property is in Beech Close

Beech Close We also note that planning permission has been granted for similar - see below 24/00701/B - Erection of boundary fence: Permitted https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=SF2O6ZIPMZE00

24/00127/B - Erection of fence, (retrospective) and creation of 3No additional parking bays at Cooil Roi: Permitted https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=S84FUXIPN1700