There’s no right to a view across land that’s not yours.

That’s the verdict of independent planning inspector Mark Hurley after he recommended refusal of a plan for a home in Farmhill be overturned, despite opposition from neighbours.

Deborah Aspden’s application (17/00760/B) for a five-bedroom dormer bungalow on land next to Farmhill Farm, in Farmhill Lane, Douglas, was turned down by planners in August.

Ms Aspden appealed the decision and the minister in charge of planning, Geoffrey Boot MHK, has agreed with Mr Hurley that the original decision be reversed.

In his assessment, Mr Hurley said: ’The proposed dwelling would certainly obstruct the view of the neighbouring woodland from the rear of Farmhill Lodge, and Mr and Mrs Collister’s opposition to the present scheme is understandable. However, there is no right to a view from a residential property across a third party’s land.’

The proposal is for a five-bedroom bungalow, with double garage on a site that was previously occupied by a garage and stables but has since been cleared.

Mr Hurley said the planning committee was ’sympathetic’ to the case of the owners of a neighbouring property at Farmhill Lodge.

’Their majority view was that, in its present form, the proposed development would detract from the residential amenity of Farmhill Lodge, in terms of their privacy and outlook,’ he said.

The couple who live at the lodge, Mr And Mrs Collister, submitted: ’The dormer windows in the proposed house would overlook the patio at the back of Farmhill Lodge.

’They would also overlook every window in the rear elevation of that property, seriously detracting from the privacy of its occupants.

’The effect of the proposed development would be oppressive.’

Privacy

Mr Hurley said that while it would be possible for the occupier of the proposed home to see into the walled back yard at Farmhill Lodge from the first floor it was to be ’expected’ in the area.

In relation to privacy, Mr Hurley said the windows in the proposed home would not face directly toward Farmhill Lodge.

’I conclude that the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenity of the occupants of Farmhill Lodge would not be so great as to justify the refusal of planning approval.’

Douglas Council raised no objection to the proposed development.