Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90045/B Applicant: Mr Jack Corlett And Ms Beth Christian Proposal: Erection of raised decking and boundary wall including removal of sod bank and levelling of ground (retrospective) Site Address: 8 Cherry Tree Drive Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2EE Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 11.07.2025 Site Visit: 11.07.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The removal of the sod bank and introduction of hard boundary treatments has resulted in a more abrupt and engineered appearance that is inconsistent with the landscaped character of the existing estate edge. This change has diminished the visual softness and continuity of this boundary, contrary to General Policy 2(b) and (c), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 5, which require development to respect the character and appearance of its surroundings and retain features of landscape value. - R 2. The raised decking introduces a level of actual and perceived overlooking toward neighbouring properties, particularly Nos. 7 and 9 Cherry Tree Drive, that exceeds what would typically be expected from ground-level amenity space. The elevated position, combined with the absence of effective screening and the proximity to habitable rooms and private garden areas, results in a significant loss of privacy for both properties. This impact is especially pronounced given the direct views into the rear gardens and rear-facing windows of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 2(g) and the principles set out in the Residential Design Guide 2021, which seek to safeguard the amenity and privacy of neighbouring occupiers. - R 3. Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not impact on the ecology of the site, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4(c) and Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. The removal of the sod bank has resulted in the loss of a landscape feature that likely supported local biodiversity and contributed to the ecological character of the area. In the absence of an ecological assessment or mitigation measures, the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would avoid adverse impacts on locally important habitats or landscape features of ecological value, as required by General Policy 2(d) and (f), Environment Policy 5, and Strategic Policy 1. ## Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o Marown Parish Commissioners

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilage of 8 Cherry Tree Drive, a detached two-storey dwelling located at the northernmost part of the residential dwellings within the Crosby Meadow Estate. The estate lies to the southwest of the junction of the A1 Main Road through Crosby and the north-south intersection of Eyreton Road (A23) and Old Church Road (B35). The site forms part of a recently approved housing development and is situated along the main access road into the estate. - 1.2 To the rear of the dwelling is a raised decking area, constructed in a light-toned material and accessed directly from the rear elevation of the dwelling and side gate. The decking is elevated above the surrounding garden level (about 700mm) and enclosed by a low retaining wall, providing a defined outdoor seating and amenity space. The northeastern boundary of the decking (with 7 Cherry Tree Drive) is defined by a timber close-boarded fence, which sits about 2m tall when within the lower site section but sits considerably lower when standing within the raised decking area. - 1.3 To the west, there is intervisibility with the neighbouring dwelling (No. 9) due to the absence of a solid boundary treatment on that side at the position of the raised decking. This open aspect allows views between the properties and contributes to a more open character between the two dwellings. The neighbouring property at No. 9 features a raised patio area of comparable size and height to the proposed decking; however, there is no record indicating that this structure has received planning approval. The proposed decking would also afford uninterrupted views over the land to the rear of the plot, which was recently the subject of a planning application for new dwellings under PA 22/00475/B. - 1.4 A drainage channel runs along the northern boundary of the site and with the dwellings on this side of the restate.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of raised decking and boundary wall including removal of sod bank and levelling of ground (retrospective). The decking area measures about 10.6m long stretching the entire with of the rear garden, and about 4m wide. It is enclosed on the west, north, and east sides by a low wall approximately 650mm in height. The area beneath the decking has been infilled using material from the sod bank that previously ran along the northern boundary of the site. Timber balustrades define the southern edge of the decking and flank the steps leading down to the garden, providing a clear and functional boundary to the raised platform.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The site is designated on the Area Plan for the East (Map 10) as 'Predominantly Residential', which re-establishes the previous designation of the site on the Development Plan as Proposed Residential'. The site is not within a Conservation area or prone to flood risk.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

• 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• 2. Strategic Policy 1 - Sustainable Development and efficient use of land and resources, promoting well-located, accessible development that contributes positively to economic growth without undermining sustainability objectives.
• 3. Strategic Policy 4 - relate to preserving or enhancing the character of the landscape, and preventing unacceptable environmental disturbance.
• 4. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 5. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats.
• 6. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against habitat damage or loss.
• 7. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area.
• 8. Paragraph 8.12.1 - supports principle of extensions and alterations in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area nor Registered Building policies.
• 9. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application.
• 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has not been the subject of any recent planning application, however, the following application which was proposed for the estate is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application: - 5.2 PA 22/00475/B for Construction of 18 houses and associated infrastructure. This was refused by the Planning Committee on 28.10.2024, and at appeal. That application relied on the presence of the sod bank and associated hedging along the boundary to provide screening for the dwellings on this side of the estate, including 8 Cherry Tree Drive and its immediate neighbours. These features have since been removed as part of the current proposal.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 6.1 DOI Highways have not made any comments although they were consulted on 11 June 2025.

6.2 Marown Parish Commissioners object to the application on the following grounds (2 July 2025):

• 1. That the sod bank did not form part of the property but belonged to the company developing the Crosby Meadows estate.
• 2. There is a loss of habitat for flora and fauna which the sod bank would have sustained.
• 3. The sod bank was a stabilising structure on the stream edge - removing that and building a wall with possibly insufficient foundations may cause instability of the stream edge.

6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the application are:

• 1. Whether the proposals would result in any visual harm to the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area;
• 2. Whether there would be any impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties; and
• 3. Whether the removal of the sod bank would result in adverse biodiversity impacts.

7.2 VISUAL IMPACT (GP2(b), (c); EP42; STP5; RDG 2021)

• 7.2.1 In assessing the potential visual impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and immediate locality, it is first considered that the proposed decking and boundary wall are located entirely to the rear of the property and are not visible from the public vantage points or adjoining highways. The visual impact is therefore confined to the private garden setting.

• 7.2.2 The decking spans the full width of the rear garden and is raised approximately 700mm above the natural ground level. It is enclosed on three sides by a low rendered wall, with timber balustrades and steps facing the garden. The materials and finish are consistent with the dwelling and surrounding estate, and the structure appears well-integrated into the rear garden layout.
• 7.2.3 The removal of the original sod bank has significantly altered the rear and northern boundary treatments of the application site. These works, carried out retrospectively at both the application site and the neighbouring property at No. 9, have replaced a previously green and natural edge with rendered walls and hard surfacing. This has introduced a more abrupt and engineered appearance, in contrast to neighbouring properties such as No. 7, where the sod bank and associated vegetation have been retained. The resulting change has diminished the visual softness and landscaped character that previously defined the estate edge and contributed to the sense of enclosure between plots. The openness now observed along this part of the northern boundary is not an inherent feature of the original layout but a consequence of these alterations, which have eroded the continuity and natural character of the area.
• 7.2.4 Although the proposed decking is well-integrated in terms of materials and scale, consistent with RDG 2021 Sections 4.11.1 and 4.11.9, and is not visible from public vantage points, the cumulative impact of the boundary alterations has a notable effect on the character of the private garden setting. The loss of the sod bank and associated planting has reduced the landscaped quality of the estate edge and introduced a visual inconsistency with the surrounding context. While the proposal respects the site in terms of scale and materials in accordance with General Policy 2(b) and (c) and Strategic Policy 5, the visual impact of the boundary changes is contrary to the aims of Environment Policy 42, which seeks to preserve and enhance the natural and landscaped qualities of the built environment.

7.3 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP2(g); RDG 2021)

• 7.3.1 The raised platform introduces a degree of actual and perceived overlooking, particularly toward No. 7 Cherry Tree Drive. Although a timber fence defines the shared boundary, the elevated position of the decking reduces its effectiveness as a privacy screen. The difference in levels makes the fence appear lower when viewed from the platform, increasing visibility into the neighbouring garden. A garden shed within No. 7's rear garden currently provides some screening between the decking and the large patio doors serving the ground floor living area. However, as this is a movable structure, it cannot be relied upon to mitigate overlooking in the long term. Should it be removed or relocated, the raised platform would afford clear and direct views into habitable rooms, resulting in a significant loss of privacy.
• 7.3.2 The western boundary with No. 9 has also been altered through retrospective works at both properties, including the removal of sod banks and planting that previously provided a natural screen. This has resulted in an open aspect between the plots, allowing for clear views between the properties. However, this openness is not reflective of the estate's original

• character, which featured fences and landscaped boundaries that contributed to privacy and visual separation. The current level of intervisibility therefore represents a departure from the established pattern of enclosure and cannot be considered a neutral or baseline condition, particularly as the works at No. 9 do not benefit from planning approval and cannot be relied upon as justification for further unsympathetic development.
• 7.3.3 No privacy screening has been proposed as part of the application. While RDG 2021 Section 4.11.10 advises that screening to a height of 1.8m above ground level may be appropriate in cases involving raised platforms, the existing boundary fences already measure close to 2m, typical for the estate. Introducing additional screening above this would result in a combined height of at least 2.4m (to provide the required privacy screening), which, given the proximity of neighbouring gardens, the width of the gardens, and the elevated position of the decking, could appear visually overbearing and intrusive when viewed from No. 7. Even if such screening were proposed, it would likely raise concerns in terms of scale and dominance, particularly in a setting where boundary treatments are generally modest and landscape led. In this context, the absence of further screening avoids exacerbating visual impacts, but it does leave the issue of overlooking unresolved.
• 7.3.4 While no objections have been received from neighbouring properties, the absence of objection cannot be taken as evidence of acceptability. Ownership is transient, and planning decisions must be based on policy compliance and the potential for harm, rather than the current views or silence of adjacent occupiers. Overall, the proposal introduces a level of overlooking that exceeds what would typically be expected from ground-level amenity space. While not necessarily unacceptable in isolation, the cumulative effect of the raised platform, its proximity to neighbouring windows, and the lack of permanent screening, or the potential visual impact if such screening were introduced, raises concerns regarding compliance with General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide.

7.4 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS (GP2(d), (f); EP4(c); EP5; STP1)

• 7.4.1 With regard to potential impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the removal of the sod bank along the northern boundary has not only altered the visual and spatial character of the site, as discussed in section 7.2, but also carries implications for local biodiversity. Although the site is not within a designated ecological area, the sod bank likely supported a modest range of flora and fauna and may have functioned as a minor wildlife corridor, contributing to the biota along the estate edge. This ecological role is underscored by the contrast with neighbouring properties, where sod banks and associated planting, such as wildflowers and tall grasses, have been retained. These features continue to provide green cover and potential habitat for local species, reinforcing both the visual and ecological value of the original boundary treatments. Their presence highlights the contribution such features make to the wider landscape character and biodiversity network of the area.
• 7.4.2 Objections from Marown Parish Commissioners have drawn attention to the loss of habitat, and this concern is supported by policy. General Policy 2(d) and (f), along with Environment Policy 4(c), require that development avoids adverse impacts on locally important habitats and landscape features of ecological value. While the sod bank may not have been formally designated, its removal represents a loss of soft landscaping that previously supported biodiversity and contributed to the green setting of the estate.
• 7.4.3 Crucially, no ecological assessment or mitigation measures have been submitted with the application. In the absence of such information, it is not possible to fully quantify the biodiversity impact. However, the removal of the sod bank, without any attempt to assess or mitigate its ecological function, represents a missed opportunity to retain or enhance a feature of environmental value. This omission undermines the proposal's compliance with Environment Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 4, both of which promote the integration of biodiversity considerations into all forms of development, regardless of scale.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal, while modest in scale and largely confined to the rear garden, has resulted in a combination of visual, amenity, and ecological impacts that are not adequately addressed through its current form. The removal of the sod bank has disrupted the landscaped character of the estate edge, introduced a more engineered and visually abrupt boundary treatment, and contributed to a level of overlooking that exceeds what would typically be expected from ground-level amenity space. In addition, the loss of a potentially valuable ecological feature has not been assessed or mitigated. Taken together, these impacts conflict with the aims of General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4, 5, and 42, Strategic Policies 1 and 5, and the Residential Design Guide, and the proposal cannot be considered to represent a sensitive or policy-compliant form of development. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 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).

9.2 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.

9.3 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. - 9.4 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: 25.07.2025 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.